title: Comparative diagnostic yield of cone beam CT reconstruction using various software programs on the detection of vertical root fractures.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the effect on diagnostic yield in the detection of experimentally induced vertical root fractures on cone beam CT images using four dental software program.
  
  
  METHODS
  190 single-rooted extracted human teeth were divided into three groups according to the pulp canal status: unrestored (UR), filled with gutta-percha (GP) and restored with a metallic custom post (Post). One-half of the sample of each group was artificially fractured and the segments repositioned. All teeth were scanned on a cone beam CT device at 0.2 mm nominal voxel resolution (i-CAT Platinum; Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, PA). The data were exported as digital imaging and communications in medicine files and imported into Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, v. 11.5 (Patterson Dental Supply Inc., St Paul, MN), InVivoDental, v. 5.0 (Anatomage Inc., San Jose, CA) and Kodak Dental Imaging Software 3D module, v. 2.1.11 (Carestream Health Inc., Rochester, NY) software. Cross-sectional images in the acquisition (using Xoran CAT™, v. 3.0.34 software; Xoran Technologies, Ann Arbor, MI) and additional software were presented to three calibrated oral radiologists who rated the presence or absence of root fracture on a five-point scale. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed, and treatment comparisons compared by analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey's test at an a priori value of α < 0.05%.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All dental software performed equally at detecting fractures. Fractures were significantly more difficult to detect when posts were present.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The diagnosis of root fracture is software-independent. The presence of an intracanal metallic post significantly decreases the detection of artificially created root fractures.
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
authors.forename: S L S
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Melo
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Haiter-Neto
authors.forename: L R
authors.initials: LR
authors.lastname: Correa
authors.forename: W C
authors.initials: WC
authors.lastname: Scarfe
authors.forename: A G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Farman
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography / Q000379:methods*; D003786:Dental Pulp Cavity / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D006801:Humans; D011176:Post and Core Technique; D012372:ROC Curve; D011857:Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D011873:Radiology Information Systems; D012389:Root Canal Obturation; D012984:Software; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D014082:Tooth Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D014092:Tooth Root / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000293:injuries*
keywords: DICOM; cone beam CT; diagnostic tests; reconstruction software; root fracture
references.citation: J Endod. 2011 Oct;37(10):1456-9
references.pmid: 21924202
references.citation: J Endod. 1993 Oct;19(10):512-5
references.pmid: 8120487
references.citation: J Endod. 2011 Jan;37(1):75-9
references.pmid: 21146082
references.citation: J Endod. 2009 May;35(5):719-22
references.pmid: 19410091
references.citation: Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007 Oct;36(7):382-6
references.pmid: 17881595
references.citation: Dent Traumatol. 2013 Feb;29(1):41-6
references.pmid: 22413921
references.citation: J Endod. 2012 Jun;38(6):856-9
references.pmid: 22595127
references.citation: Clin Radiol. 2005 Nov;60(11):1133-40
references.pmid: 16223609
references.citation: J Endod. 2012 Mar;38(3):305-8
references.pmid: 22341065
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Sep;136(3):460-70
references.pmid: 19732681
references.citation: J Prosthodont Res. 2011 Jul;55(3):137-40
references.pmid: 21134786
references.citation: Int Endod J. 2009 Jun;42(6):463-75
references.pmid: 19298576
references.citation: J Endod. 2010 Jul;36(7):1245-9
references.pmid: 20630309
references.citation: Int Endod J. 2007 Mar;40(3):179-85
references.pmid: 17305694
references.citation: Int Endod J. 2012 Mar;45(3):234-9
references.pmid: 22003884
references.citation: J Oral Sci. 2010 Dec;52(4):593-7
references.pmid: 21206162
references.citation: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Dec;108(6):939-45
references.pmid: 19875312
references.citation: J Endod. 2010 Jan;36(1):126-9
references.pmid: 20003950
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Apr;137(4 Suppl):S50.e1-9; discussion S50-2
references.pmid: 20381759
references.citation: J Endod. 2012 Oct;38(10):1344-7
references.pmid: 22980175
references.citation: Dent Clin North Am. 2008 Oct;52(4):707-30, v
references.pmid: 18805225
references.citation: Scand J Dent Res. 1970;78(4):329-42
references.pmid: 4394635
references.citation: J Endod. 2009 Feb;35(2):233-5
references.pmid: 19166780
references.citation: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 Jan;103(1):114-9
references.pmid: 17178504
references.citation: Int Endod J. 2007 Oct;40(10):818-30
references.pmid: 17697108
references.citation: Int Endod J. 2012 Nov;45(11):1004-9
references.pmid: 22551491
references.citation: J Endod. 2010 Nov;36(11):1879-82
references.pmid: 20951305