Reliability of CBCT and Periapical Radiography Methods to Evaluate External Apical Root Resorption during Early Phase of Orthodontic Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reabsorção radicular apical externa - RRAE é um efeito indesejável associado ao movimento dentário induzido. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a confiabilidade de dois métodos radiográficos, a tomográfica computadorizada de feixe cônico - TCFC e a radiografia periapical (RP), para mensurar a RRAE. A amostra foi composta por 25 pacientes (média de idade de 18,02 ± 6,06 anos) com presença de apinhamento de moderado a severo. A RRAE foi verificada em RP e TCFC de incisivos superiores e inferiores em dois tempos (T1 – início do tratamento ortodôntico e T2 – seis meses após início do tratamento). As RRAE foi avaliada através de mensurações da diferença no comprimento dentário (T2-T1) de cada incisivo. Foram realizadas por dois examinadores previamente calibrados. Nas imagens obtidas pela TCFC, as medidas foram realizadas por meio do programa Dolphin (Chatsworth, Calif), já nas imagens das radiografias periapicais, no programa CorelDraw X5 (Ottawa, Candá). Os erros de medição intra e interexaminadores foram avaliados pelo Coeficiente de Correlação Intraclasse - CCI. Os valores obtidos foram comparados utilizando o teste t de student com nível de significância de 5%. Os resultados da comparação entre T1 e T2, tanto para a RP (0.92mm) quanto para a TCFC (0.25mm), evidenciaram a presença de RRAE para todos os dentes mensurados, com diferença estatisticamente significante. Ambos os métodos são confiáveis para avaliar a RRAE aos 6 meses após início do tratamento ortodôntico, contudo a diferença de magnitude entre as medidas obtidas entre os métodos não justifica a solicitação de TCFC somente para este fim.Palavras-chave: Dente. Ortodontia. Tomografia Computadorizada de Feixe Cônico. AbstractExternal apical root resorption (EARR) is an undesirable therapeutic effect associated with induced tooth movement. The aim of this studywas to evaluate the reliability of two methods, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and periapical radiography (PR), for measuringEARR during early phases of orthodontic treatment. The study included 25 patients (mean age, 18.02 ± 6.06 years) with moderate to severetooth crowding. Maxillary and mandibular incisors were evaluated in CBCT scans and PR at two different times: T1, at the beginning oforthodontic treatment; T2, 6 months after the treatment initiation. The difference in incisor length T2-T1, as measured by two independentcalibrated examiners, represented EARR. Measurements made on the images obtained by I-cat scanner (Hatfield,PA) were performed using theDolphin program (Chatsworth, Calif.). The PR images were imported to the CorelDraw X5 program (Ottawa, Canada). Intraclass correlationcoefficient (ICC) was used to measure intra- and inter-examiner errors. A Student’s t-test was used for comparing the results between CBCTand PR, with a significance level of 5%. All teeth showed EARR, using both periapical radiographs (0.92mm) and CBCT (0.25mm). Althoughthe difference between the results of the two techniques was statistically significant, its value was lower than 1mm for all teeth measured. Bothradiographic methods are suitable and reliable for assessing EARR after 6 months of initial orthodontic treatment. However, the differencein magnitude between the measurements obtained by the two methods does not justify requesting CBCT merely to assess EARR duringorthodontic treatment.Keywords: Tooth. Orthodontics. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".