Is cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) an alternative to plain radiography in assessments of dental disease? A study of method agreement in a medically compromised patient population

Is cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) an alternative to plain radiography in assessments of dental disease? A study of method agreement in a medically compromised patLindfors, N., Ekestubbe, A., Frisk, F. 

et al. Is cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) an alternative to plain radiography in assessments of dental disease? A study of method agreement in a medically compromised patient population. Clin Oral Invest 28

, 127 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05527-3ient population

• Research
• Open access
• Published: 30 January 2024

• Volume 28, article number 127, (2024)

  Abstract

• Cite this articleAbstract

Objectives

Poor oral health and dental infections can jeopardize medical treatment and be life-threatening. Due to this, patients with head and neck malignancies, generalized tumor spread, organ transplant, or severe infection are referred for a clinical oral and radiographic examination. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic agreement of three radiographic modalities: intraoral radiographs (IO), panoramic radiographs (PX), and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for diagnosis of dental diseases.

Materials and methods

Three hundred patients were examined with IO, PX, and CBCT. Periapical lesions, marginal bone level, and caries lesions were diagnosed separately by four oral radiologists. All observers also assessed six teeth in 30 randomly selected patients at two different occasions. Kappa values and percent agreement were calculated.

Results

The highest Kappa value and percent agreement were for diagnosing periapical lesions (0.76, 97.7%), and for the assessment of marginal bone level, it varied between 0.58 and 0.60 (87.8–89.3%). In CBCT, only 44.4% of all teeth were assessable for caries (Kappa 0.68, 93.4%). The intra-observer agreement, for all modalities and diagnoses, showed Kappa values between 0.5 and 0.93 and inter-observer agreement varied from 0.51 to 0.87.

Conclusions

CBCT was an alternative to IO in diagnosing periapical lesions. Both modalities found the same healthy teeth in 93.8%. All modalities were performed equally regarding marginal bone level. In caries diagnosis, artifacts were the major cause of fallout for CBCT.

Clinical relevance

Intraoral radiography is the first-hand choice for diagnosing dental disease. For some rare cases where intraoral imaging is not possible, a dedicated panoramic image and/or CBCT examination is an alternative.