OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate whether the use of CT facilitates agreement among endodontists in selecting treatments for root-filled maxillary molars with apical periodontitis and to assess the efficacy of CT in choosing a treatment for such teeth. METHODS: 39 root-filled maxillary molars from 34 patients with suspected apical periodontitis were independently evaluated by 4 endodontists and 1 postgraduate student (decision-makers). Treatment decisions were made based on intra-oral radiographs and a fictive clinical history. After 1-3 months, the same decision-makers repeated the examination of the same teeth but with additional information from a CT examination. Agreement between decision-makers with or without the availability of the CT results was measured with Cohen's kappa coefficient. Differences in selected treatments with or without accessibility to the CT results were plotted for the same endodontists using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The agreement in assessments among endodontists was slight or fair before the CT results were available (range: 0.081-0.535). No increase was observed after reviewing the CT results (range: 0.116-0.379). After the use of CT, the treatment plan was changed 38-76% of the time by all decision-makers, and the changes affected 57.8% of the cases in the study. CONCLUSIONS: The endodontists in this study exhibited a low degree of agreement when choosing a treatment for root-filled maxillary molars with apical periodontitis. A CT examination of the investigated teeth did not result in a significantly higher degree of agreement, and CT frequently contributed to a shift in the selected therapy.

AIM: To determine whether the outcome of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations performed in accordance with the European Commission guidelines in a clinical setting has an impact on choosing diagnoses in endodontics. METHODOLOGY: A prospective observational study was conducted. Fifty-three consecutive patients (81 teeth) from two different endodontic specialist clinics in Sweden were followed. After performing a thorough clinical examination (based on the history, clinical findings, and diagnostic tests such as intra-oral radiography), the examiner wrote down a preliminary diagnosis before CBCT examination. After the CBCT examination, a new diagnosis was made by the same examiner. Both the pre- and the post-CBCT examination diagnoses were plotted according to patients and teeth. The CBCT examinations were performed using similar equipment and protocols that were standardized amongst the clinics. RESULTS: The diagnoses were changed for at least one tooth in 22 patients (41%); overall, the diagnoses were changed for 28 teeth (35%). CONCLUSION: CBCT has a substantial impact on diagnostic thinking in endodontics when used in accordance with the European Commission guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess to what extent cone beam CT (CBCT) used in accordance with current European Commission guidelines in a normal clinical setting has an impact on therapeutic decisions in a population referred for endodontic problems. METHODS: The study includes data of consecutively examined patients collected from October 2011 to December 2012. From 2 different endodontic specialist clinics, 57 patients were referred for a CBCT examination using criteria in accordance with current European guidelines. The CBCT examinations were performed using similar equipment and standardized among clinics. After a thorough clinical examination, but before CBCT, the examiner made a preliminary therapy plan which was recorded. After the CBCT examination, the same examiner made a new therapy plan. Therapy plans both before and after the CBCT examination were plotted for 53 patients and 81 teeth. As four patients had incomplete protocols, they were not included in the final analysis. RESULTS: 4% of the patients referred to endodontic clinics during the study period were examined with CBCT. The most frequent reason for referral to CBCT examination was to differentiate pathology from normal anatomy, this was the case in 24 patients (45% of the cases). The primary outcome was therapy plan changes that could be attributed to CBCT examination. There were changes in 28 patients (53%). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT has a significant impact on therapeutic decision efficacy in endodontics when used in concordance with the current European Commission guidelines.

Aim: To gain insight into the decision processes of dentists when requesting a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination in endodontic settings. Methodology: Fourteen dentists (eight female) 33–58 years of age (mean = 44) practising in Sweden were interviewed. Ten of the dentists were specialists in Endodontics. The absolute inclusion criterion was experience of referring patients for CBCT for endodontic reasons. The included dentists comprised a strategically selected diverse sample in terms of gender, age, work experience, educational background, location of practice, service affiliation and accessibility to CBCT. Data were obtained through semistructured interviews exposing the context of their last three self‐reported referrals. Dentists were encouraged to describe their experiences of the circumstances in their own words, aided by the interviewer's open‐ended questions. The interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. The text was analysed by qualitative content analysis. Results: The manifest content was organized into three categories that were defined as visualization as a desire, facilitating tough decisions and allocating responsibility. Conclusion: An overall theme (covering the latent content) was identified: A balance between clinical common sense and a ‘better safe than sorry’ attitude guides the use of CBCT in endodontic settings. Informants had high clinical standards, knowledge concerning radiation risks and good sense, which could compensate for their lack of knowledge of guidelines. The national radiation regulatory system was perceived to work as a slightly porous gatekeeper for over‐usage.