IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i7p4088-d782978.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Evaluation on Treatment Planning after Endodontic Instrument Fracture

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantinos Kalogeropoulos

    (Private Practice Limited to Endodontics, 11521 Athens, Greece)

  • Alexandra Xiropotamou

    (Private Dental Practice, 11521 Athens, Greece)

  • Despina Koletsi

    (Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Giorgos N. Tzanetakis

    (Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece)

Abstract

Intracanal instrument fracture is a procedural iatrogenic event during endodontic treatment that may affect treatment planning and eventually treatment outcome. Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) has offered several advantages, especially in endodontic cases in which information from conventional periapical radiograph may not be adequate to allow a precise treatment planning decision and a subsequent appropriate management of the cases. The present study was firstly conducted to assess the effect of CBCT evaluation on the decision-making process after instrument fracture; secondly, to introduce a new clinical approach in cases with fractured instruments located in the mesial roots of mandibular and maxillary molars. The study design was observational. The sample comprised all cases of mandibular and maxillary molars where an instrument fracture had occurred in the mesial roots. Two qualified (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece) and experienced (more than fifteen years of daily practicing) endodontists evaluated all the cases. The initial treatment plan made by evaluating periapical radiographs of each case was compared to the final plan set after CBCT evaluation. A marginal homogeneity test for paired data was conducted to test the concordance of treatment planning with periapical radiographs versus CBCT. Multivariable logistic regression was structured to identify predictors of modification in treatment planning following CBCT assessment, and to record estimators for decision to remove, bypass or retain the fragment. The level of statistical significance was pre-specified at p < 0.05. Of a total 52 cases evaluated, change in treatment planning with conventional periapical radiograph as a reference, following evaluation of CBCT, was observed in more than half of the teeth. The difference was statistically significant ( p < 0.001). Apical location of the fragment was more likely to induce a perceived change in treatment planning after CBCT evaluation ( p < 0.01). Canal merging induced 95% lower odds ( p = 0.01) for taking a decision to remove or bypass, revealing that retaining the fragment was by far a more likely decision. A significant impact of CBCT preoperative evaluation on treatment planning for the management of such cases was demonstrated. Apical location of the fragment and canal merging seem to influence the decision-making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantinos Kalogeropoulos & Alexandra Xiropotamou & Despina Koletsi & Giorgos N. Tzanetakis, 2022. "The Effect of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Evaluation on Treatment Planning after Endodontic Instrument Fracture," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4088-:d:782978
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4088/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4088/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4088-:d:782978. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.