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

Author(s)

Huainan, Stephanie Diaz ^[1] ; Brito Aragao, Maria Gerusa ^[1] ; Dias Moreno, Ana Paula ^[1] ; de Queiroz, Alexandra Mussolino ^[1] ; Bezerra Silva, Raquel Assed ^[1] ; Garcia De Paula-Silva, Francisco Wanderley ^[1] ; Bezerra Silva, Lea Assed ^[1]

Affiliation

^[1] Univ Sao Paulo, Sch Dent Ribeirao Preto, Dept Pediat Dent, BR-14049900 Ribeirao Preto, SP - Brazil

• Document type: Journal article
• Source: JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS; v. 46, n. 6, p. 827-831, JUN 2020.
• Web of Science Citations: 0

Abstract

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-Fosses, 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 1 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 imagingwhen suspicious of a possible unsuccessful result after furcation perforation treatment. (AU)

• FAPESP's process: 14/25692-5 - Dental pulp cell differentiation and biomineralization: cell culture assays, experimental models and clinical application in human
• Grantee: Léa Assed Bezerra da Silva
• Support Opportunities: Regular Research Grants