ArticleJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)2022
Comparison of the Accuracy of CBCT Images and Apex Locator in Detection of External Root Resorption with Perforation.
Article in Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of wireless electronic apex locators in teeth with different types of root resorption: a 3D-printed tooth model study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Expert consensus on the diagnosis and therapy of endo-periodontal lesions.International journal of oral science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: Perforation within external root resorption (ERR) lesions dra-matically affects the prognosis of the involved roots. Failure to diagnose perforation under-mines treatment; therefore, early detection of these lesions is of great importance. The cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images and electronic apex locators (EAL) are reliably used to detect root perforations. Purpose: In this in vitro study, we compared the EAL findings with the results obtained by the CBCT images for the detection of perforations within ERR lesions. Materials and Method: This cross sectional study included 160 extracted anterior human teeth. The teeth were categorized into four groups including teeth with intact root, teeth with ERR, teeth with ERR and 0.5 mm perforation, and teeth with ERR with 1 mm perforation. The presence of perforations was compared by CBCT images and root EAL. Results: The sensitivity of CBCT scans in detecting 0.5 mm and 1 mm root perforations was 100% and 97.5%, respectively, while the sensitivity of the EAL was 10% and 27.5% in de-tecting 0.5 mm and 1 mm root perforations, respectively( with the ±0.5mm range of error). For detecting intact and teeth with ERR, the specificity of CBCT scans was 100% and 95%, respectively, and for EAL, it was 100% for both. Poor agreement was found between the two techniques (kappa=-0.025). Conclusion: CBCT scans were more sensitive and specific than EAL scans for detecting perforations in non-obturated root canals in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.