Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and three intraoral radiographic systems in the diagnosis of carious lesions in vitro.


Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and three intraoral radiographic systems in the detection of in vitro caries lesions. Material and Methods: One hundred teeth (46 molars and 54 premolars) were evaluated, including 176 proximal surfaces and 90 occlusal surfaces, with or without dental caries lesions. Digital images of all teeth were obtained using specific intraoral radiographs, VistaScan DürrDental®phosphor-plate radiography, XIOS XG Sirona® digital sensor radiography, and CBCT I-CATTM. Observers evaluated the images for the detection of caries lesions. The teeth were clinically sectioned and stereomicroscopy served as a validation tool. The relationship of sensitivity and specificity between all systems was determined through the ROC curve using Az values. Results: The values of the area under the curve (Az) selected for the CBCT I-CATTM system were 0.89 (0.84-0.93), for conventional radiography 0.71 (0.66-0.76), digital sensor radiography 0.74 (0.70-0.78) and digital radiography with phosphor-plates 0.73 (0.69-0.77). Statistically significant differences were found between the CBCT I-CATTM system and intraoral radiographic systems (p<0.01). The sensitivity and specificity values for the CBCT I-CATTM were 0.84 and 0.93 respectively. Conclusion: CBCT has a high sensitivity and specificity compared to intraoral radiographic systems for the diagnosis of dental caries lesions in vitro.


[1]. Ástvaldsdóttir A, Åhlund K, Holbrook WP, de Verdier B, Tranæus S. Approximal Caries Detection by DIFOTI: In Vitro Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy/Efficacy with Film and Digital Radiography. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:1–8.

[2]. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient Risk Related to Common Dental Radiographic Examinations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(9):1237–43.

[3]. Fanning B. CBCT--the justification process, audit and review of the recent literature. J Ir Dent Assoc. 2011;57(5):256–61.

[4]. European Commission. Radiation protection 172. Evidence based guidelines on cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Louxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 2012.

[5]. 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. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2008;37(1):18–22.

[6]. Sandhu SV, Tiwari R, Bhullar RK, Bansal H, Bhandari R, Kakkar T, Bhusri R. Sterilization of extracted human teeth: A comparative analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2012;2(3):170-5.

[7]. Dominici JT, Eleazer PD, Clark SJ, Staat RH, Scheetz JP. Disinfection/sterilization of extracted teeth for dental student use. J Dent Educ. 2001;65(11):1278–80.

[8]. Young S, Lee J, Hodges R, Chang T-L, Elashoff D, White S. A comparative study of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography and charge-coupled device sensors for detecting caries. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2009;38(7):445–51.

[9]. Henostroza H. Caries dental. Principios y procedimientos para el dáignóstico. Lima: Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; 2007.

[10]. Swets J. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. 1988;240(4857):1285–93.

[11]. Goncalves L, Subtil A, Oliveira MR, Bermudez P. ROC curve estimation: an overwiew. REVSTAT. 2014;(1):1–20.

[12]. Şenel B, Kamburoğlu K, Üçok ö, Yüksel SP, Özen T, Avsever H. Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2010;39(8):501–11.

[13]. 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(2):478–82.

[14]. Zhang Z, Qu X, Li G, Zhang Z, Ma X. The detection accuracies for proximal caries by cone-beam computerized tomography, film, and phosphor plates. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2011;111(1):103–8.

[15]. 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(2):e24–7.

[16]. Krzyżostaniak J, Kulczyk T, Czarnecka B, Surdacka A. A comparative study of the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and intraoral radiographic modalities for the detection of noncavitated caries. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(3):667–72.

[17]. Pontual AA, de Melo D, de Almeida S, Bóscolo F, Haiter Neto F. Comparison of digital systems and conventional dental film for the detection of approximal enamel caries. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2010;39(7):431–6.

[18]. Li G, Berkhout WER, Sanderink GCH, Martins M, van der Stelt PF. Detection of in vitro proximal caries in storage phosphor plate radiographs scanned with different resolutions. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2008;37(6):325–9.

[19]. Gimenez T, Piovesan C, Braga MM, Raggio DP, Deery C, Ricketts DN, et al. Visual Inspection for Caries Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2015;94(7):895–904.

[20]. Dulanto JA. Validación histológica in vitro de ICDAS-II y Micro-CT para la detección de lesiones de caries proximales y oclusales. [Madrid]; 2015.

[21]. Jallad M, Zero D, Eckert G, Ferreira Zandona A. In vitro Detection of Occlusal Caries on Permanent Teeth by a Visual, Light-Induced Fluorescence and Photothermal Radiometry and Modulated Luminescence Methods. Caries Res. 2015;49(5):523–30.

[22]. Diniz MB, Boldieri T, Rodrigues JA, Santos-Pinto L, Lussi A, Cordeiro RCL. The performance of conventional and fluorescence-based methods for occlusal caries detection. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012;143(4):339–50.

[23]. Abogazalah N, Ando M. Alternative methods to visual and radiographic examinations for approximal caries detection. J Oral Sci. 2017;59(3):315–22.

[24]. Wenzel A, Hirsch E, Christensen J, Matzen LH, Scaf G, Frydenberg M. Detection of cavitated approximal surfaces using cone beam CT and intraoral receptors. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2013;42(1):39458105.

[25]. Sansare K, Singh D, Sontakke S, Karjodkar F, Saxena V, Frydenberg M, Wenzel A. Should cavitation in proximal surfaces be reported in cone beam computed tomography examination? Caries Res. 2014;48(3):208-13.

[26]. Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S, Howerton W. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2006;35(4):219–26.
How to Cite
BELTRÁN, Jorge A.; LEÓN-MANCO, Roberto A.; GUERRERO, Maria Eugenia. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and three intraoral radiographic systems in the diagnosis of carious lesions in vitro.. Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 6, p. 466-473, dec. 2020. ISSN 0719-2479. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 17 june 2024. doi: