The Role of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Diagnosing Complex Endodontic Lesions
Background : Endodontic diagnosis and treatment planning have traditionally depended on periapical radiographs, which, despite their widespread use, present significant limitations in accurately detecting complex endodontic lesions. The inability of two-dimensional imaging to provide a clear visualization of anatomical structures often results in missed diagnoses of conditions such as periapical pathology, root fractures, resorptive lesions, and undetected accessory canals. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has emerged as a highly effective imaging modality that offers three-dimensional visualization, superior spatial resolution, and cross-sectional imaging capabilities. By enabling precise localization and characterization of endodontic pathologies, CBCT has significantly enhanced diagnostic accuracy and improved clinical decision-making. However, despite its advantages, concerns regarding radiation exposure, accessibility, and cost have influenced its widespread integration into routine endodontic practice. This study aims to evaluate the role of CBCT in diagnosing complex endodontic lesions in a tertiary care institute in India, focusing on its diagnostic superiority over conventional periapical radiography and its impact on treatment planning. Objectives: This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT in identifying complex endodontic lesions, including periapical pathology, root fractures, internal and external resorption, and anatomical variations. It also evaluates CBCT’s ability to enhance clinical decision-making by providing a more precise understanding of pathological changes and anatomical complexities. By comparing CBCT with conventional periapical radiographs, the study examines the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of both modalities, determining whether CBCT significantly alters treatment planning outcomes. Furthermore, the research investigates the limitations of CBCT, particularly in terms of accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and the need for judicious use in clinical practice, ensuring its application in cases where conventional radiography is inconclusive. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care institute in India, where 100 cases of complex endodontic lesions were reviewed. Patient records, including clinical evaluations, periapical radiographs, CBCT scans, and intraoperative findings, were analyzed to assess the efficacy of CBCT in diagnosing various endodontic conditions. Cases were classified into different categories, including periapical lesions, vertical and horizontal root fractures, internal and external root resorption, and anatomical variations in the root canal system. The diagnostic performance of CBCT was compared to that of conventional periapical radiographs, with intraoperative findings or histopathological reports serving as the reference standard. The study assessed key diagnostic parameters, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), to determine the reliability of CBCT. Additionally, cases were examined to evaluate whether the use of CBCT influenced treatment planning decisions, such as the choice between non-surgical retreatment, surgical intervention, or extraction. Results: Among the 100 cases analyzed, CBCT demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy compared to periapical radiographs. It was significantly more effective in detecting periapical lesions, with a diagnostic accuracy of 92% compared to 68% for periapical radiographs. Vertical root fractures were detected with a sensitivity of 88% using CBCT, while periapical radiographs identified only 55% of cases. Similarly, CBCT was able to detect resorptive defects with 94% accuracy, compared to 61% for conventional radiographs. The study also found that 32% of cases had missed canals that were only identified through CBCT imaging, highlighting its ability to reveal anatomical complexities that are often undetected with two-dimensional imaging. Statistical analysis showed that CBCT had a sensitivity of 91.5% and specificity of 89.2% for periapical pathology, while for detecting root fractures, sensitivity was recorded at 87.4% and specificity at 90.5%. The study further found that in 48% of cases, the use of CBCT led to significant modifications in treatment planning, particularly in determining whether surgical intervention was necessary or if a case could be managed through non-surgical retreatment. Despite its superior diagnostic capabilities, challenges related to cost, accessibility, and higher radiation exposure were identified as limiting factors in its routine application. Conclusion: CBCT has proven to be a highly effective imaging modality for diagnosing complex endodontic lesions, providing superior visualization and diagnostic accuracy compared to conventional periapical radiographs. Its ability to detect periapical pathology, root fractures, resorptive lesions, and anatomical variations enables clinicians to make more informed treatment decisions, reducing the risk of misdiagnosis and improving long-term patient outcomes. While CBCT offers significant advantages, its widespread use is hindered by concerns regarding radiation exposure, financial constraints, and limited availability in some clinical settings. The findings of this study emphasize the need for a selective and judicious approach to CBCT utilization, ensuring that it is employed in cases where conventional radiographic techniques fail to provide sufficient diagnostic information. Future research should focus on standardizing guidelines for CBCT use in endodontics, exploring strategies to enhance its cost-effectiveness, and increasing accessibility to ensure its broader integration into routine dental practice in India.