Periapical foreign body findings – histological and radiological comparison

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to clarify the perceptibility of periapical foreign materials in imaging compared with histopathology. We hypothesized that dentoalveolar imaging is sufficient to detect periapical foreign bodies.

Material and Methods

Radiological and histopathological records of patients diagnosed with periapical granuloma or radicular cyst from 2000 to 2013 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients with histologically verified foreign bodies were included in the study and their pathological samples and radiological images were reviewed. The outcome variable was radiologically detectable foreign material. The predictor variables were histopathological diagnosis, type of inflammation, type and number of foreign bodies, imaging modality, and site of foreign material.

Results

Compared to the histopathological diagnosis of foreign bodies as the gold standard, the level of radiologic detectability was mild. Histologically verified foreign material could be detected by imaging in 32/59 (53.5%) patients. Histological diagnosis, type of inflammation, type or number of foreign bodies, imaging modality or site of foreign material had no association with radiological detectability (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

According to our results, histopathology is a more accurate diagnostic tool than radiology in periapical foreign bodies or foreign body reactions. Clinicians should keep in mind the limitations of imaging when setting the diagnosis and planning treatment.

Keywords:

• Diagnostic imaging
• histopathology
• foreign body
• periapical granuloma
• radicular cyst

Acknowledgments

We thank Minerva Foundation (Helsinki, Finland) for the support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

Author P.H. was supported by the Minerva Foundation, Helsinki, Finland under Grant (number 96). The funding source was not involved in study design; in collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.