Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Accuracy of Intra-Oral Radiography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Buccal Bone Loss
Véronique Christiaens1, Ruben Pauwels2,3,4, Bassant Mowafey3,5
1Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dental School, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Background:
The use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dentistry started in the maxillofacial field, where it was used for complex and comprehensive treatment planning. Due to the use of reduced radiation dose compared to a computed tomography (CT) scan, CBCT has become a frequently used diagnostic tool in dental practice. However, published data on the accuracy of CBCT in the diagnosis of buccal bone level is lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of intra-oral radiography (IOR) and CBCT in the diagnosis of the extent of buccal bone loss.
Methods:
A dry skull was used to create a buccal bone defect at the most coronal level of a first premolar; the defect was enlarged apically in steps of 1 mm. After each step, IOR and CBCT were taken. Based on the CBCT data, two observers jointly selected three axial slices at different levels of the buccal bone, as well as one transverse slice. Six dentists participated in the radiographic observations. First, all observers received the 10 intra-oral radiographs, and each observer was asked to rank the intra-oral radiographs on the extent of the buccal bone defect. Afterwards, the procedure was repeated with the CBCT scans based on a combination of axial and transverse information. For the second part of the study, each observer was asked to evaluate the axial and transverse CBCT slices on the presence or absence of a buccal bone defect.
Results:
The percentage of buccal bone defect progression rankings that were within 1 of the true rank was 32% for IOR and 42% for CBCT. On average, kappa values increased by 0.384 for CBCT compared to intra-oral radiography. The overall sensitivity and specificity of CBCT in the diagnosis of the presence or absence of a buccal bone defect was 0.89 and 0.85, respectively. The average area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating curve (ROC) was 0.892 for all observers.
Conclusion:
When CBCT images are available for justified indications, other than bone level assessment, such 3D images are more accurate and thus preferred to 2D images to assess periodontal buccal bone. For other clinical applications, intra-oral radiography remains the standard method for radiographic evaluation.
