Comparative study of cone beam computed tomography and intraoral periapical radiographs in diagnosis of lingual-simulated external root resorptions

Background: Owing to a lack of symptoms and difficult visualization in routine intraoral radiographs, diagnosis of external root resorptions can be challenging. Aim: The goal of this study was to compare two image acquisition methods, intraoral radiographs and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), in the diagnosis of external resorption. Material and Methods: Thirty-four maxillary and mandibular bicuspids were divided into three groups. Perforations measuring 0.3 and 0.6 mm in diameter and 0.15 and 0.3 mm in depth, respectively, were made on the lingual root surfaces in thirty teeth, and four were used as controls. Next, teeth were mounted on an apparatus and radiographed at mesial, distal, and orthoradial angulations. CBCT images were also taken. The analysis of the intraoral radiographic and tomographic images was carried out by two experts using standardized scores. Data were then compared statistically. Results: A strong agreement between the examiners was observed in both diagnosis methods, the intraoral radiographic (r = 0.93) and the tomographic analysis (r = 1.0). Tomography had higher statistically significant detection values than intraoral radiography (P < 0.05). In intraoral radiographs, the detection was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in the mandibular bicuspids, compared with their maxillary counterparts. The ability to detect 0.6-mm perforations by intraoral radiography was significantly higher than that of 0.3-mm perforations (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Cone beam computed tomography showed better diagnostic ability compared with intraoral radiography, regardless of the tooth or the dimensions of the resorption evaluated.

Comparison of fast-track diagnostics respiratory pathogens multiplex real-time RT-PCR assay with in-house singleplex assays for comprehensive detection of human respiratory viruses

Fast-track Diagnostics respiratory pathogens (FTDRP) multiplex real-time RT-PCR assay was compared with in-house singleplex real-time RT-PCR assays for detection of 16 common respiratory viruses. The FTDRP assay correctly identified 26 diverse respiratory virus strains, 35 of 41 (85%) external quality assessment samples spiked with cultured virus and 232 of 263 (88%) archived respiratory specimens that tested positive for respiratory viruses by in-house assays. Of 308 prospectively tested respiratory specimens selected from children hospitalized with acute respiratory illness, 270 (87.7%) and 265 (86%) were positive by FTDRP and in-house assays for one or more viruses, respectively, with combined test results showing good concordance (K=0.812, 95% CI = 0.786-0.838). Individual FTDRP assays for adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus showed the lowest comparative sensitivities with in-house assays, with most discrepancies occurring with specimens containing low virus loads and failed to detect some rhinovirus strains, even when abundant. The FTDRP enterovirus and human bocavirus assays appeared to be more sensitive than the in-house assays with some specimens. With the exceptions noted above, most FTDRP assays performed comparably with in-house assays for most viruses while offering enhanced throughput and easy integration by laboratories using conventional real-time PCR instrumentation. Published by Elsevier B.V.