This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gundappa, M Articles by Whaites, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gundappa, M Articles by Whaites, E.

Comparison of ultrasound, digital and conventional radiography in differentiating periapical lesions

King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's, King's College and St Thomas' Hospitals, London, UK

*Correspondence to: Dr Suk Ng, Department of Dental Radiology, King's College London, Denmark Hill Campus, Caldecot Road, London SE5 9RW, UK; Email: suk.ng{at}kcl.ac.uk

Received 19 September 2005; accepted 26 December 2005

Objectives: To carry out an in vivo comparative pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound, digital (DR) and conventional plain film-based imaging (PF) in the differential diagnosis of periapical lesions.

Methods: Fifteen patients aged between 13 years and 40 years with periapical lesions associated with anterior maxillary or mandibular teeth requiring endodontic surgery were selected and consented for the study. Pre-operative periapical radiographs (PF) and charge coupled device (CCD) DR were obtained. Measurements and provisional diagnoses of the apical areas were made by three specialist observers (two dental radiologists and one endodontist) on three separate occasions. Pre-operative ultrasound examinations were then performed and the images assessed by two specialist observers (ultrasonographer and endodontist) for the size, contents, vascular supply and a provisional diagnosis made as to whether the lesion was a cyst or granuloma. Endodontic surgery was performed including curettage of the apical tissues to enable histopathological investigation, which provided the gold standard diagnosis. All measurements and findings were compared and statistically analysed.

Results: On PF and DR the periapical lesions were readily identified but observers were unable to differentiate granuloma from cyst using either modality. Dimensional measurements were subject to greater interobserver variation on DR than on PF. Where sufficient buccal cortical bone had been resorbed, ultrasound imaging was straightforward but underestimated the size of the lesions compared with PF and DR. In all 15 cases, the ultrasound diagnosis agreed with the histopathological gold standard.

Conclusions: PF and DR enable diagnosis of periapical disease existence, but not of its nature; while ultrasound underestimates the extent of disease, but can provide accurate information on the pathological nature of the lesion.

Keywords: radiolucent; periapical; radiography; dental; radiography, dental, digital; ultrasound