Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptance, accessibility, and usage of cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging among American Association of Endodontists (AAE) members in the United States by means of an online survey.
Materials and methods: An invitation to participate in a Web-based survey was sent to 3,000 members of the AAE. The survey consisted of 19 questions on demographics, access to CBCT machines, frequency of use for particular applications, and reasons in case CBCT was not used.
Results: A total of 477 endodontists responded to the survey, representing a 15.9% response rate. Around 91.8% of endodontists used CBCT imaging in their practice. Around 86% of endodontists had access to CBCT in their office, while 14% referred their patients to an outside office. Cone-beam computed tomographic units used by endodontists were Carestream (59.6%), Morita (20.8%), and Sirona (5.7%). Around 81.1% of endodontists didn't think CBCT imaging has high risk of radiation exposure; however, 10% of their patients declined CBCT imaging due to both cost and radiation exposure. Around 92.7% requested the segmental view when asking for CBCT. Endodontists’ opinion was that CBCT enhances diagnosis of odontogenic pathosis, anatomical structures, treatment of iatrogenic errors, and diagnosis of nonodontogenic pathosis by 96.4%, 96.3%, 92.2%, and 88%, respectively. Around 93% of endodontists agreed that they would not consider doing CBCT for pregnant women. Majority of endodontists (74.6%) use CBCT in their practice for surgery, followed by 60.2% in nonsurgical retreatment. While 59.1% use CBCT in initial nonsurgical treatment, 44% reported that they use CBCT in endodontic recall and 9.2% use CBCT for pediatric patients.
Conclusion: CBCT technology is becoming the imaging modality of choice for nonsurgical retreatments and presurgical treatment planning. Endodontists deal with complex cases and thus the CBCT is a necessary tool that helps save a lot of time and effort during treatment procedures, looking for canals or determining why a previous treatment failed, and in providing the most comprehensive care.
Clinical significance: With the advancement in technology in the latest era, the three-dimensional CBCT imaging helped provide superior information over the two-dimensional periapical radiograph in making the correct diagnostic decision. This survey enlightened the usage of CBCT among endodontic practitioners in the United States.
Patel S, Kanagasingam S, et al. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in endodontics. Dent Update 2010 Jul–Aug;37(6):373–379. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2010.37.6.373.
Uraba S, Ebihara A, et al. Ability of Cone-beam Computed Tomography to Detect Periapical Lesions That Were Not Detected by Periapical Radiography: A Retrospective Assessment According to Tooth Group. J Endod 2016 Aug;42(8):1186–1190. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.04.026.
Cohenca N, Shemesh H. Clinical applications of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics: A comprehensive review Part 1: Applications associated with endodontic treatment and diagnosis. Quintessence Int 2015;46(6):465–480. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a33990.
Seltzer S, Bender IB, et al. Incidence and duration of pain following endodontic therapy. Relationship to treatment with sulfonamides and to other factors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1961;14:74–82. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(61)90476-5.
Seltzer S, Bender IB, et al. Histologic changes in dental pulps of dogs and monkeys following application of pressure, drugs, and microorganisms on prepared cavities. II. Changes observable more than one month after application of traumatic agents. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1961;14:856–867. DOI: 10.1016/S0030-4220(61)80016-9.
Bender IB. Factors influencing the radiographic appearance of bony lesions. J Endod 1982;8(4):161–170. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(82)80212-4.
Durack C, Patel S. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Braz Dent J 2012;23(3):179–191. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-64402012000300001.
Setzer FC, Hinckley N, et al. A Survey of Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Use among Endodontic Practitioners in the United States. J Endod 2017 May;43(5):699–704. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.12.021.
American Association of Endodontics; American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Use of cone-beam computed tomography in endodontics Joint Position Statement of American Association of Endodontics and American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;111(2):234–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.11.012.
De Paula-Silva FW, Wu MK, et al. Accuracy of periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography scans in diagnosing apical periodontitis using histopathological findings as a gold standard. J Endod 2009 Jul;35(7):1009–1012. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.04.006.
Abella F, Patel S, et al. Evaluating the periapical status of teeth with irreversible pulpitis by using cone-beam computed tomography scanning and periapical radiographs. J Endod 2012 Dec;38(12): 1588–1591. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.09.003.
Aminoshariae A, Kulild JC, et al. Cone-beam Computed Tomography Compared with Intraoral Radiographic Lesions in Endodontic Outcome Studies: A Systematic Review. J Endod 2018 Nov;44(11): 1626–1631. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.08.006.
Rodríguez G, Patel S, et al. Influence of Cone-beam Computed Tomography on Endodontic Retreatment Strategies among General Dental Practitioners and Endodontists. J Endod 2017 Sep;43(9): 1433–1437. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.04.004.
Ee J, Fayad MI, et al. Comparison of endodontic diagnosis and treatment planning decisions using cone-beam volumetric tomography vs periapical radiography. J Endod 2014 Jul;40(7): 910–916. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.03.002.
Karabucak B, Bunes A, et al. Prevalence of Apical Periodontitis in Endodontically Treated Premolars and Molars with Untreated Canal: A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study. J Endod 2016 Apr;42(4):538–541. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.12.026.
Hassan B, Metska ME, et al. Detection of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth by a cone beam computed tomography scan. J Endod 2009 May;35(5):719–722. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.01.022.
Schloss T, Sonntag D, et al. A Comparison of 2 and 3-dimensional Healing Assessment after Endodontic Surgery Using Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Volumes or Periapical Radiographs. J Endod 43(7):1072–1079. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.02.007.
Patel S, Patel R, et al. The Impact of Different Diagnostic Imaging Modalities on the Evaluation of Root Canal Anatomy and Endodontic Residents’ Stress Levels: A Clinical Study. J Endod 2019 Apr;45(4): 406–413. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.12.001.
Giacomino CM, Ray JJ, et al. Targeted Endodontic Microsurgery: A Novel Approach to Anatomically Challenging Scenarios Using 3-dimensional-printed Guides and Trephine Burs-A Report of 3 Cases. J Endod 2018 Apr;44(4):671–677. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.12.019.
McLeod CC, Klabunde CN, et al. Health care provider surveys in the United States, 2000–2010: A review. Eval Health Prof 2013;36:106–126. DOI: 10.1177/0163278712474001.
Funkhouser E, Vellala K, et al. Supplementing online surveys with a mailed option to reduce bias and improve response rate: The national dental PBRN. J Pub Health Dent 2014;74:276–282. DOI: 10.1111/jphd.12054.