Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 14, 2025

04:04
Lateral Molar Approach-Driven Transoral Endoscopic Procedure for Benign Infratemporal Fossa Tumor Resection
Published on: August 15, 2025
245
Imaging diagnosis of external root resorption in replanted permanent teeth
Juliana Vilela Bastos1, Vanda Helena de Faria Queiroz2, Donnersson Bruno Alves FelÍcio2
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
Brazilian Oral Research
|July 23, 2020
Summary
Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital periapical radiographs (PR) show significant discrepancies in diagnosing external root resorption (ERR) in replanted teeth. Their differing assessments of ERR type and severity impact diagnostic accuracy.
Area of Science:
- Dentistry
- Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
- Endodontics
Background:
- External root resorption (ERR) is a common complication following traumatic dental avulsion and replantation.
- Accurate diagnosis of ERR is crucial for treatment planning and prognosis.
- Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital periapical radiographs (PR) are common imaging modalities used in endodontics.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the diagnostic performance of CBCT and PR in identifying the type and extent of ERR in human permanent teeth after traumatic avulsion and replantation.
- To evaluate the agreement between CBCT and PR in assessing ERR characteristics.
Main Methods:
- 39 human permanent maxillary incisors replanted after traumatic avulsion were included.
- Digital PR and CBCT images were acquired for each tooth.
- Two calibrated examiners independently assessed ERR type and extension on both imaging modalities.
Main Results:
- Significant divergence was observed between CBCT and PR in diagnosing ERR type, with CBCT identifying more inflammatory ERR and PR identifying more replacement ERR.
- Discordance in ERR type diagnosis reached 69.2% (MD surfaces) and 61.5% (MD/BL surfaces) between the methods.
- PR classified most cases as moderate/severe ERR (69.2%), while CBCT indicated mild ERR in 41.4% (MD) and 51.3% (MD/BL) of cases.
Conclusions:
- There is a notable discrepancy in the diagnostic capabilities of CBCT and digital PR for evaluating external root resorption in replanted teeth.
- The choice of imaging modality influences the classification of ERR type and severity.
- Further research is needed to establish standardized protocols for imaging ERR in post-traumatic avulsed and replanted teeth.

