compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)
and periapical radiographs (PR) for the detection of external root
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
electronic search in databases, including the Cochrane Central Register
of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, the China National Knowledge
Infrastructure, and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe
(SIGLE), was performed until August 2016. A manual search of relevant
journals and reference lists of enrolled studies was conducted. The
studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT or PR for ERR,
with simulated ERR as the reference test, were considered eligible. The
diagnostic accuracy of CBCT and PR was statistically pooled using a
bivariate model. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to
explore the sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was used to
test the stability of the overall results in the meta-analysis.
total of 15 studies were included in this systematic review. The pooled
results showed that CBCT had significantly higher sensitivity (0.89;
95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.96) and area under curve (0.96; 95%
CI: 0.77-0.96) than PR (sensitivity: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.56-0.78; area
under curve: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.85-0.90). No difference in sensitivity,
specificity, and area under the curve between conventional and digital
PR was observed.
available evidence suggests that CBCT could be reliable to detect the
presence of ERR in clinical practice and has a higher diagnostic
efficacy than PR.