Accuracy of Conventional Periapical Radiography in Diagnosing Furcation Repair after Perforation Treatment.

Autor:	Huamán SD; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: stephdiazh@usp.br., Brito Aragão MG; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Dias Moreno AP; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Mussolino de Queiroz A; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Bezerra da Silva RA; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Garcia de Paula-Silva FW; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil., Bezerra da Silva LA; Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of endodontics [J Endod] 2020 Jun; Vol. 46 (6), pp. 827-831. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Apr 16.
DOI:	10.1016/j.joen.2020.03.004
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Periapical radiography (PR) is a diagnostic tool to be used by professionals in clinical practice. The method presents limitations, and doubts still exist about its value to evaluate furcation perforation and the reparative process of hard or soft tissues after treatment. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of PR as a diagnostic method to detect both resorption of the furcation area after induced experimental perforation and repair after perforation treatment using histopathological findings as a gold standard. Methods: Thirty teeth of beagle dogs with furcation perforation were filled with Biodentine (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France), ProRoot White mineral trioxide aggregate (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK), or gutta-percha and examined using PR and histology. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy were calculated. Results: PR detected repair and reabsorption of furcation perforation in 55% and 48% of the teeth, respectively. Histologic analysis showed furcation perforation in 66% and 21% of the teeth, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of PR for the detection of repair were 0.84 and 1, respectively, whereas for resorption detection, the values were 0.43 and 0.65, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy for PR was 0.89 and 0.72 for repair and resorption of furcation perforation, respectively. PR showed more accurate diagnostic (true positives + true negatives/total) in repair detection compared with resorption of furcation perforation. Conclusions: We conclude that PR is not adequate in detecting resorption progress after the treatment of furcation perforation, and we encourage the use of digital imaging when suspicious of a possible unsuccessful result after furcation perforation treatment. (Copyright © 2020 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu