The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the detection of noncavitated occlusal caries lesions and to compare this accuracy with that observed with conventional radiographs. 135 human teeth, 67 premolars and 68 molars with macroscopically intact occlusal surfaces, were examined by two independent observers using the CBCT system: NewTom 3G (Quantitative Radiology) and intraoral conventional film (Kodak Insight). The true lesion diagnosis was established by histological examination. The detection methods were compared by means of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy. To assess intra- and interobserver agreement, weighted kappa coefficients were computed. Analyses were performed separately for caries reaching into dentin and for all noncavitated lesions. For the detection of occlusal lesions extending into dentin, sensitivity values were lower for film (0.45) when compared with CBCT (0.51), but the differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.19). For all occlusal lesions sensitivity values were 0.32 and 0.22, respectively, for CBCT and film. The specificity scores were high for both modalities. Interobserver agreement amounted to 0.93 for the CBCT system and to 0.87 for film. It was concluded that the use of the 9-inch field of view NewTom CBCT unit for the diagnosis of noncavitated occlusal caries cannot be recommended.

Keywords:
Computed tomography, Dental caries, Diagnosis, Radiography
1.
Akdeniz BG, Gröndahl HG, Magnusson B: Accuracy of proximal caries depth measurements: comparison between limited cone beam computed tomography, storage phosphor and film radiography. Caries Res 2006;40:202-207.
2.
Angnes V, Angnes G, Batisttella M, Grande RHM, Loguercio AD, Reis A: Clinical effectiveness of laser fluorescence, visual inspection and radiography in the detection of occlusal caries. Caries Res 2005;39:490-495.
3.
Baba R, Konno Y, Ueda K, Ikeda S: Comparison of flat-panel detector and image-intensifier detector for cone-beam CT. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2002;26:153-158.
4.
Diniz MB, Rodrigues JA, Neuhaus KW, Cordeiro RCL, Lussi A: Influence of examiner's clinical experience on the reproducibility and accuracy of radiographic examination in detecting occlusal caries. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:515-523.
5.
Ferreira Zandoná AG, Analoui M, Schemehorn BR, Eckert GJ, Stookey GK: Laser fluorescence detection of demineralization in artificial occlusal fissures. Caries Res 1998;32:31-40.
6.
Haiter-Neto F, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E: Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography scans compared with intraoral image modalities for detection of caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:18-22.
7.
Hintze H, Wenzel A: Clinical and laboratory radiographic caries diagnosis. A study of the same teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996;25:115-118.
8.
Ie YL, Verdonschot EH: Performance of diagnostic systems in occlusal caries detection compared. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1994;22:187-191.
9.
Kamburoğlu K, Murat S, Yüksel SP, Cebeci ARI, Paksoy CS: Occlusal caries detection by using a cone-beam CT with different voxel resolutions and a digital intraoral sensor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109:e63-e69.
10.
Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Noujeim M, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, Langlais RP: Image artifacts in dental cone-beam CT. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101:652-657.
11.
Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, Naitoh M, Fujishita M, Ariji E, Langlais RP: Effects of image artifacts on gray-value density in limited-volume cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:829-836.
12.
Kayipmaz S, Sezgin ÖS, Saricaoğlu ST, Çan G: An in vitro comparison of diagnostic abilities of conventional radiography, storage phosphor, and cone beam computed tomography to determine occlusal and approximal caries. Eur J Radiol 2011;80:478-482.
13.
Kühnisch J, Ifland S, Tranaeus S, Heinrich-Weltzien R: Comparison of visual inspection and different radiographic methods for dentin caries detection on occlusal surfaces. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38:452-457.
14.
Lorenzoni DC, Bolognese AM, Garib DG, Guedes FR, Sant'anna EF: Cone-beam computed tomography and radiographs in dentistry: aspects related to radiation dose. Int J Dent 2012, Epub ahead of print.
15.
Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB: Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:219-226.
16.
Qu X, Li G, Zhang Z, Ma X: Detection accuracy of in vitro approximal caries by cone beam computed tomography images. Eur J Radiol 2011;79:e24-e27.
17.
Senel B, Kamburoğlu K, Uçok O, Yüksel SP, Ozen T, Avsever H: Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:501-511.
18.
Souza-Zaroni WC, Ciccone JC, Souza-Gabriel AE, Ramos RP, Corona SAM, Palma-Dibb RG: Validity and reproducibility of different combinations of methods for occlusal caries detection: an in vitro comparison. Caries Res 2006;40:194-201.
19.
Tsuchida R, Araki K, Okano T: Evaluation of a limited cone-beam volumetric imaging system: comparison with film radiography in detecting incipient proximal caries. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:412-416.
20.
van Daatselaar A, Tyndall D, van der Stelt P: Detection of caries with local CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:235-241.
21.
Wenzel A: Current trends in radiographic caries imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;80:527-539.
22.
Wenzel A: Bitewing and digital bitewing radiography for detection of caries lesions. J Dent Res 2004;83(Spec No C):C72-C75.
23.
Young SM, Lee JT, Hodges RJ, Chang TL, Elashoff DA, White SC: A comparative study of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography and charge-coupled device sensors for detecting caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38:445-451.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.