The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Surgical Measurements of Periodontal Bone Defects in Periodontitis Patients: An In Vivo Study

Emad Alzahrani, Cristalle Soman, Mohammed Alasqah, Khalid Gufran

Keywords : Cone beam computed tomography, Periodontal pocket, Periodontitis, Surgical intervention

Citation Information : Alzahrani E, Soman C, Alasqah M, Gufran K. Comparative Evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Surgical Measurements of Periodontal Bone Defects in Periodontitis Patients: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (8):772-777.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3677

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 26-11-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of noninvasive cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the estimation of periodontal bone defects and compare it with that of measurements obtained by invasive surgical exploration using open flap debridement procedure for the evaluation of bony topography. Materials and methods: Bone defects in 384 sites with moderate-to-severe periodontitis from eight patients were considered. Probing depth was measured in the following six sites in the selected teeth: mesiobuccal (MB), mesiopalatal (MP)/mesiolingual (ML), buccal (B), palatal (P)/lingual (L), distobuccal (DB) and distopalatal (DP)/distolingual (DL). The bone defects were measured from CBCT images followed by surgical intervention at all six sites. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: There was no significant difference observed between CBCT and surgical intervention. However, surgical intervention was found to have higher mean values than the CBCT measurements. The Pearson correlation showed a significantly positive correlation (p < 0.05) between CBCT and surgical intervention in all sites except L/P site. Additionally, there were negative correlations observed for all sites except B and L/P sites; however, these were not statistically significant. Moreover, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) observed between anterior and posterior sites measured via CBCT except for the MB site. On the other hand, a comparison between anterior and posterior teeth measured via surgical interventions showed significant differences (p = 0.0001) in all measured sites. Conclusion: A significant correlation has been observed between measurements acquired from CBCT and surgical intervention for the anterior teeth. On the contrary, no significant correlation was observed for the posterior teeth. Clinical significance: Overlapping and the absence of 3D information are two of traditional radiography's main drawbacks. Surgerical exposure can yield precise information, but it gives less time to plan the kind of periodontal regeneration that will be needed. The accuracy and feasibility of CBCT have been established.

PDF Share
  1. Newman MG, Takei H, Klokkevold PR, et al. Carranza's Clinical periodontology. Elsevier Health Sciences 2011.
  2. Zhang X, Li Y, Ge Z, Zhao H, et al. The dimension and morphology of alveolar bone at maxillary anterior teeth in periodontitis: A retrospective analysis—using CBCT. Int J Oral Sci 2020;12:1–9. DOI: 10.1038/s41368-019-0071-0.
  3. Hefti AF. Periodontal probing. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1997;8:336–356. DOI: 10.1177/10454411970080030601.
  4. Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol 2014;6:794–807. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i10.794.
  5. Cotti E, Campisi G. Advanced radiographic techniques for the detection of lesions in bone. Endod Top 2004;7:52–72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2004.00064.x.
  6. Mol A, Balasundaram A. In vitro cone beam computed tomography imaging of periodontal bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:319–324. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/26475758.
  7. Eickholz P, Hausmann E. Accuracy of radiographic assessment of interproximal bone loss in intrabony defects using linear measurements. Eur J Oral Sci 2000;108:70–73. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2000.00729.x.
  8. de Faria Vasconcelos K, Evangelista K, Rodrigues C, et al. Detection of periodontal bone loss using cone beam CT and intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:64–69. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/13676777.
  9. Kim TS, Obst C, Zehaczek S, et al. Detection of bone loss with different X-ray techniques in periodontal patients. J Periodontol 2008;79:1141–1149. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2008.070578.
  10. Mark R, Mohan R, Gundappa M, et al. Comparative evaluation of periodontal osseous defects using direct digital radiography and cone-beam computed tomography. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2021;13:306–311. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_804_20.
  11. Eskandarlo A, Bardal R, Dehghani M. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography, intraoral radiography and periodontal probing for periodontal bone defects measurement. J Dent Med 2011;23:15–19. Available from: https://jdm.tums.ac.ir/browse.php?a_id=76&sid=1&slc_lang=en.
  12. Dong T, Yuan L, Liu L, et al. Detection of alveolar bone defects with three different voxel sizes of cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. Sci Rep 2019;9:1–6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544761/.
  13. Pelekos G, Tse JM, Ho D, et al. Defect morphology, bone thickness, exposure settings and examiner experience affect the diagnostic accuracy of standardized digital periapical radiographic images but not of cone beam computed tomography in the detection of peri-implant osseous defects: An in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46:1294–1302. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13200.
  14. Grimard BA, Hoidal MJ, Mills MP, et al. Comparison of clinical, periapical radiograph, and cone-beam volume tomography measurement techniques for assessing bone level changes following regenerative periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 2009;80:48–55. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.080289.
  15. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72:75–80. PMID: 16480609.
  16. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am 2008;52:707–730. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005.
  17. Mol A. Imaging methods in periodontology. Periodontol 2000 2004;34:34–48. DOI: 10.1046/j.0906-6713.2003.003423.x.
  18. Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol 2006;77:1261–1266. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2006.050367.
  19. Feijo C, Lucena J, Kurita L, et al. Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography in the detection of horizontal periodontal bone defects: an in vivo study. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 2012;32:162–168. PMID: 22754909.
  20. Scarfe WC. Imaging of maxillofacial trauma: evolutions and emerging revolutions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:75–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.05.057.
  21. Banodkar AB, Gaikwad RP, Gunjikar TU, et al. Evaluation of accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for measurement of periodontal defects: A clinical study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2015;19:285–289. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.154176.
  22. Fuhrmann R, Bücker A, Diedrich P. Assessment of alveolar bone loss with high resolution computed tomography. J Periodontal Res 1995;30:258–263. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1995.tb02131.x.
  23. Walter C, Schmidt JC, Rinne CA, et al. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for diagnosis and treatment planning in periodontology: systematic review update. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24:2943–2958. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03326-0.
  24. Meijer HJ, Slagter KW, Vissink A, et al. Buccal bone thickness at dental implants in the maxillary anterior region with large bony defects at time of immediate implant placement: A 1-year cohort study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:73–79. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12701.
  25. Abdinian M, Yaghini J, Jazi L. Comparison of intraoral digital radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in the measurement of periodontal bone defects. Dent Med Probl 2020;57:269–273. DOI: 10.17219/dmp/118749.
  26. Patil SR, Al-Zoubi IA, Gudipaneni R, et al. A comparative study of cone-beam computed tomography and intrasurgical measurements of intrabony periodontal defects. Int J Oral Health Sci 2018;8:81–85. DOI: 10.4103/ijohs.ijohs_16_17.
  27. Pitale U, Mankad H, Pandey R, et al. Comparative evaluation of the precision of cone-beam computed tomography and surgical intervention in the determination of periodontal bone defects: A clinicoradiographic study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2020;24:127–134. DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_118_19.
  28. Kim DM, Bassir SH. When is cone-beam computed tomography imaging appropriate for diagnostic inquiry in the management of inflammatory periodontitis? An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol 2017;88:978-998. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2017.160505.
  29. Haas LF, Zimmermann GS, De Luca Canto G, et al. Precision of cone beam CT to assess periodontal bone defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017;47:1–16. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20170084.
  30. Woelber JP, Fleiner J, Rau J, et al. Accuracy and Usefulness of CBCT in Periodontology: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 2018;38:289–297. DOI: 10.11607/prd.2751.
  31. Walter C, Schmidt JC, Dula K, et al. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for diagnosis and treatment planning in periodontology: A systematic review. Quintessence Int 2016;47:25–37. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a34724.
  32. Rios HF, Borgnakke WS, Benavides E. The use of cone-beam computed tomography in management of patients requiring dental implants: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol 2017;88:946–959. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2017.160548.
  33. El Khalifa M, Abu el Sadat SM, Gaweesh YS, et al. Assessment of gingival thickness using cbct compared to transgingival probing and its correlation with labial bone defects: a cross-sectional study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37:464-472. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.9234.
  34. Christiaens V, De Bruyn H, Thevissen E, et al. Assessment of periodontal bone level revisited: a controlled study on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical evaluation methods and intra-oral radiography. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:425–431. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2129-8.
  35. Lee JS, Jeon YS, Strauss FJ, et al. Digital scanning is more accurate than using a periodontal probe to measure the keratinized tissue width. Sci Rep 2020;10:1–8. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-60291-0.
  36. Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, et al. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implant Res 2018;29:393–415. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13142.
  37. Assiri H, Dawasaz AA, Alahmari A, et al. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in periodontal diseases: a systematic review based on the efficacy model. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:1–15. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01106-6.
  38. AlJehani YA. Diagnostic applications of cone-beam CT for periodontal diseases. Int J Dent 2014;1:1–5.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.