Objectives: This clinical study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of intraoral periapical radiography (PR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in detecting external apical root resorption (EARR) in orthodontic patients during the retention phase. Methods: The research involved 41 Caucasian patients who had undergone comprehensive orthodontic treatment, with a total of 328 teeth analyzed. The Kappa values for inter- and intra-examiner agreement were high for both PR and CBCT, indicating a robust level of agreement among examiners. The study used a four-point scale for classifying EARR. Results: This study showed comparable accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity between PR and CBCT when using the most stringent criterion of "Definitely present". The data suggested that CBCT outperformed PR when using a less stringent criterion ("Definitely present" or "Probably present"), particularly for maxillary incisors. However, overall diagnostic performance, as measured by the area under the ROC curve, showed only a slight advantage for CBCT over PR. Areas under the ROC curve range between 0.85 and 0.90 for PR and between 0.89 and 0.92 for CBCT. According to DeLong's test, there is no evidence to conclude that the area under the ROC curve is different for PR and CBCT. Conclusions: Both PR and CBCT are accurate diagnostic tools for identifying EARR, with PR being deemed more suitable for routine clinical use due to its cost-effectiveness and lower radiation exposure. The findings emphasize the importance of considering the risk-benefit ratio when deciding on imaging modalities for monitoring EARR in orthodontic patients.
Keywords: cone beam computed tomography; diagnostic accuracy; external apical root resorption; orthodontic treatment; periapical radiography.