Impact of cone beam CT on diagnosis of external cervical resorption: the severity of resorption assessed in periapical radiographs and cone beam CT. A prospective clinical study

2021 ◽  
pp. 20210279
Author(s):  
Julie Suhr Villefrance ◽  
Lise-Lotte Kirkevang ◽  
Ann Wenzel ◽  
Michael Væth ◽  
Louise Hauge Matzen

Objectives: To compare the severity of external cervical resorption (ECR) observed in periapical (PA) images and cone beam CT (CBCT) using the Heithersay classification system and pulp involvement; and to assess inter- and intraobserver reproducibility for three observers. Methods: CBCT examination was performed in 245 teeth (in 190 patients, mean age 40 years, range 12–82) with ECR diagnosed in PA images. Three observers scored the severity of ECR using the Heithersay classification system (severity class 1–4) and pulp involvement (yes/no) in both PA images and CBCT. Percentage concordance and κ-statistics described observer variation in PA images and CBCT for both inter- and intraobserver reproducibility. Results: For all three observers, the ECR score was the same in the two modalities in more than half of cases (average 59%; obs1: 54%, obs2: 63%, obs3: 61%). However, in 38% (obs1: 44%, obs2: 33%, obs3: 36%) of the cases, the observers scored more severe ECR in CBCT than in PA images (p < 0.001). The ECR score changed to a less severe score in CBCT only in 3% (obs1: 1%, obs2: 4%, obs3: 4%). For pulp involvement, 14% (obs1: 7%, obs2: 20%, obs3: 15%) of the cases changed from “no” in PA images to “yes” in CBCT. In general, κ values were higher for CBCT than for PA images for both the Heithersay classification score and pulp involvement. Conclusions: ECR was generally scored as more severe in CBCT than PA images using the Heithersay classification and also more cases had pulp involvement in CBCT.

2021 ◽  
pp. 20210146
Author(s):  
Rachel L Brooks ◽  
Hazel M McCallum ◽  
Rachel A Pearson ◽  
Karen Pilling ◽  
Jonathan Wyatt

Objectives: Treatment verification for MR-only planning has focused on fiducial marker matching, however, these are difficult to identify on MR. An alternative is using the MRI for soft-tissue matching with cone beam computed tomography images (MR-CBCT). However, therapeutic radiographers have limited experience of MRI. This study aimed to assess transferability of therapeutic radiographers CT-CBCT prostate image matching skills to MR-CBCT image matching. Methods: 23 therapeutic radiographers with 3 months–5 years’ experience of online daily CT-CBCT soft-tissue matching prostate cancer patients participated. Each observer completed a baseline assessment of 10 CT-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image matches, followed by 10 MR-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image match assessment. A MRI anatomy training intervention was delivered and the 10 MR-CBCT prostate soft-tissue image match assessment was repeated. Limits of agreement were calculated as the disagreement of the observers with mean of all observers. Results: Limits of agreement at CT-CBCT baseline were 2.8 mm, 2.8 mm, 0.7 mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral). MR-CBCT matches prior to training were 3.3 mm, 3.1 mm, 0.9 mm, and after training 2.6 mm, 2.4 mm, 1.1 mm (vertical, longitudinal, lateral). Results show similar limits of agreement across the assessments, and variation reduced following the training intervention. Conclusion: This suggests therapeutic radiographers’ prostate CBCT image matching skills are transferrable to a MRI planning scan, since MR-CBCT matching has comparable observer variation to CT-CBCT matching. Advances in knowledge: This is the first publication assessing interobserver MR-CBCT prostate soft tissue matching in an MR-only pathway.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document