Cone beam computed tomography and periapical lesions: a systematic review analysing studies on diagnostic efficacy by a hierarchical model

Publisher： John Wiley & Sons Inc

E-ISSN： 1365-2591|48|9|815-828

ISSN： 0143-2885

Source： INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL, Vol.48, Iss.9, 2015-09, pp. : 815-828

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

AbstractAimTo evaluate using a systematic review approach the diagnostic efficacy of CBCT for periapical lesions, focusing on the evidence level of the included studies using a six‐tiered hierarchical model.MethodologyThe MEDLINE bibliographic database was searched from 2000 to July 2013 for studies evaluating the potential of CBCT imaging in the diagnosis and planning of treatment for periapical lesions. The search strategy was limited to English language publications using the following combined terms in the search strategy: apical pathology or endodontic pathology or periapical or lesion or healing and CBCT or cone beam CT. The diagnostic efficacy level of the studies was assessed independently by four reviewers.ResultsThe search identified 25 publications that qualitatively or quantitatively assessed the use of CBCT for the diagnosis of periapical lesions, in which the methodology/results comprised at least one of the following parameters: the methods, the imaging protocols or qualitative/quantitative information on how CBCT influenced the diagnosis and/or treatment plan.ConclusionFrom the assessed studies, it can be concluded that although there is a tendency for a higher accuracy for periapical lesion detection using CBCT compared to two‐dimensional imaging methods, no studies have been conducted that justify the standard use of CBCT in diagnosing periapical lesions. In addition, it should be considered that, at the present time, the efficacy of CBCT as the diagnostic imaging method for periapical lesions has been assessed merely at low diagnostic efficacy levels.