The Utility of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans in Diagnosing and Treating Anterior Lesions of the Maxilla and Mandible.

BACKGROUND: The standard screening protocol for radiographic examination in dentistry as per the American Dental Association recommendations is a panoramic radiograph (PAN) and four horizontal bitewings. PAN inherently suffers from several shortcomings like the superimposition of anatomic structures, especially of the cervical spine that obscures a significant portion of the anterior maxilla and mandible. This region has a significant amount of pathology that is not adequately imaged. Three-dimensional (3D) imaging provides circumferential information on the area of interest and adds value to the diagnosis and treatment planning of pathology, especially in the anterior maxilla and mandible. However, there is not an adequate number of well-designed studies that articulate the true value addition of 3D imaging for the evaluation of this region.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate the value addition of 3D imaging in diagnosing pathologies in the anterior maxilla and mandible when compared to two-dimensional PAN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 25 cases that had a diagnosis of anterior pathology and had both a PAN and a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan were collected for this study. An institutional review board approval to retrospectively evaluate these data was obtained. The PAN and CBCT scans were randomly evaluated by a second-year dental student, an oral and maxillofacial radiology resident in training, and a board-certified oral radiologist. The scans were evaluated using a three-point modified Likert scale, where 1 represents "not visible or clear," 2 represents "visible but not clear," and 3 represents "visible and clear." The lesions were evaluated for characteristics like lesion location, size & shape, internal contents, borders of the lesion, cortical integrity, locularity, and effect on adjacent structures like root resorption. After the evaluation was completed, a comparison of the lesion diagnosis was done with histopathology to confirm the diagnosis. The evaluators were also asked to comment on the specific feature that 3D imaging provided that added value to the case. Kappa analysis was done to evaluate inter-operator reliability.

RESULTS: PAN demonstrated significantly lower efficacy in identifying and diagnosing lesions. Only 56% of cases were analyzed using PAN, with 44% deemed undetectable or poorly visualized. These challenging cases necessitated CBCT scans for accurate diagnosis, which successfully diagnosed all 25 cases. The p-value of 0.0002 for PAN implies a highly significant difference from histopathology, suggesting the distinctions are not due to chance. Conversely, the p-value of 0.3273 for CBCT implies that observed differences may be random, lacking sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. CBCT scans consistently outperformed PAN in visualizing various lesion characteristics, underscoring their superior diagnostic capabilities.

CONCLUSIONS: In this study, with a small sample size, 3D imaging provided a significant value addition to the diagnosis and treatment planning by providing additional information regarding the location, extent, internal content, and effect on adjacent structures. The practical implications for clinical settings, along with comparisons to current literature, underscore the study's distinctiveness.