Is cone-beam computed tomography more accurate than periapical radiography for detection of vertical root fractures? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abbas Shokri; Fatemeh Salemi; Tara Taherpour; Hamed Karkehabadi; Kousar Ramezani; Foozie Zahedi; Maryam Farhadian

doi:10.1186/s12880-024-01472-5

Is cone-beam computed tomography more accurate than periapical radiography for detection of vertical root fractures? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Med Imaging. 2024 Oct 22;24(1):286. doi: 10.1186/s12880-024-01472-5.

Authors

Abbas Shokri¹, Fatemeh Salemi¹, Tara Taherpour², Hamed Karkehabadi³, Kousar Ramezani⁴, Foozie Zahedi^{5

6}, Maryam Farhadian⁷

Affiliations

¹ Dental Implants Research Center. Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Hamadan University of Medical Science, Hamadan, Iran.
² Hamadan University of Medical Science, Hamadan, Iran.
³ Department of Endodontics, Dental Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Science, Hamadan, Iran.
⁴ Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Qazvin University of Medical Science, Qazvin, Iran.
⁵ Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Dental Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. dr.fooziezahedi@gmail.com.
⁶ Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Science, Shahid Fahmideh Street, Hamadan, Iran. dr.fooziezahedi@gmail.com.
⁷ Biostatistics, Modeling of Non Communicable Diseases Research Center, Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence comparing the diagnostic accuracy of periapical radiography (PA) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for detection of vertical root fractures (VRFs).

Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published regarding all types of human teeth. Data were analyzed by Comprehensive Meta-Analysis statistical software V3 software program. The I2 statistic was applied to analyze heterogeneity among the studies.

Results: Twenty-three articles met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review and 16 for the meta-analysis. The sensitivity and specificity for detection of VRFs were calculated to be 0.51 and 0.87, respectively for PA radiography, and 0.70 and 0.84, respectively for CBCT.

Conclusions: The sensitivity of CBCT was higher than PA radiography; however, difference between the specificity of the two modalities was not statistically significant.

Keywords: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Digital Radiography; Tooth Fractures; Tooth Root.

Publication types

Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Comparative Study

MeSH terms

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography* / methods
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography* / statistics & numerical data
Humans
Radiography, Dental* / methods
Radiography, Dental* / statistics & numerical data
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tooth Fractures* / diagnostic imaging
Tooth Root* / diagnostic imaging
Tooth Root* / injuries