Cemento-Enamel Junction Identification Methods: A Narrative Review CEJ Identification
Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration (Triple R),
Vol. 10 (2025),
1 January 2025
Abstract
The cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) serves as a critical anatomical landmark in both periodontal and restorative dentistry, guiding attachment level measurement, biologic width preservation, and restorative margin placement. However, accurate CEJ localization remains clinically challenging due to its anatomical variability, soft-tissue coverage, cervical wear, and technique-related limitations. Conventional clinical methods - visual inspection and tactile probing, remain essential but are limited by operator dependence and soft-tissue interference. Standardized intraoral radiographs, especially bitewings, improve reproducibility in interproximal CEJ–alveolar crest evaluation but fail to resolve buccal/lingual surfaces. This narrative review aims to summarize and critically evaluate current methods for identifying the CEJ, highlighting their diagnostic reliability, advantages, and limitations across clinical and imaging approaches.
- Cemento-enamel junction
- Tooth morphology
- Periodontal probing
- Ultrasonography
- Cone Beam Computed Tomography
How to Cite
References
1. Vandana KL, Haneet RK. Cementoenamel junction: An insight. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2014;18(5):549–54. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.142437.
2. Mokhagul J, Lertpimonchai A, Samaranayake L, Charatkulangkun O. A reappraisal of the accuracy of the tactile method for the detection of the subgingival cementoenamel junction: An in vivo study. Eur J Dent 2025;19(1):96–102. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1786865.
3. Metwally S, Stachewicz U. Teeth resorption at the cement–enamel junction (CEJ): Microscopy analysis. Micron 2020;137:102913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2020.102913.
4. Kim HJ, Kim SY. Cervical enamel projections from a periodontal perspective: A scoping review. Clin Anat 2024;37(3):353–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.24141.
5. Peeran SW, Ramalingam K, Sethuraman S, Thiruneervannan M. Furcation involvement in periodontal disease: A narrative review. Cureus 2024;16(3):e55924. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.55924.
6. Jacobs R, Fontenele RC, Lahoud P, Shujaat S, Bornstein MM. Radiographic diagnosis of periodontal diseases—current evidence versus innovations. Periodontol 2000 2024;95(1):51–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12580.
7. Cairo F, Pini-Prato GP. A technique to identify and reconstruct the cementoenamel junction level using combined periodontal and restorative treatment of gingival recession: A prospective clinical study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30(6):573–81.
8. Carvalho, B.A.S., Duarte, C.A.B., Silva, J.F. et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the Periodontium with biologic width invasion. BMC Oral Health 20, 116 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01101-x
9. Pini-Prato G, Franceschi D, Cairo F, Nieri M, Rotundo R. Classification of dental surface defects in areas of gingival recession. J Periodontol 2010;81(6):885–90. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.090631.
10. Ceppi E, Dall’Oca S, Rimondini L, Pilloni A, Polimeni A. Cementoenamel junction of deciduous teeth: SEM-morphology. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2006;7(3):131–4.
11. Brezniak N, Goren S, Zoizner R, Shochat T, Dinbar A, Wasserstein A, et al. The accuracy of cementoenamel junction identification on periapical films. Angle Orthod 2004;74(4):496–500.
12. Wang IC, Chan HL, Johnson GK, Elangovan S. Assessment of negative gingival recession: A critical component of periodontal diagnosis. Appl Sci 2022;12(14):7015. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12147015.
13. Couso-Queiruga E, Barboza EP, Avila-Ortiz G, Gonzalez-Martin O, Chambrone L, Rodrigues DM. Relationship between supracrestal soft tissue dimensions and other periodontal phenotypic features: A cross-sectional study. J Periodontol 2023;94(8):944–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.22-0434.
14. Wu YC, Duran-Garnica O, Chan HL, Tatakis DN. Management of severe gingival recession using a double papilla connective tissue graft: A 2-year follow-up case study. Clin Adv Periodontics 2025. https://doi.org/10.1002/cap.10368.
15. Coccoluto L, Speroni S, Rotundo R. Clinical management of gingival recessions with or without cervical lesions: A decisional scheme proposal. J Clin Med 2025;14(17):6134. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14176134.
16. Deepa R, Prakash S. Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a new computerized cementoenamel junction probe. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16(1):74–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.94609.
17. Barendregt DS, van der Velden U, Timmerman MF, Bulthuis HM, van der Weijden F. Detection of the cementoenamel junction with three different probes: An in vitro model. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36(3):212–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01360.x.
18. Gibbs CH, Hirschfeld JW, Lee JG, Low SB, Magnusson I, Thousand RR, et al. Description and clinical evaluation of a new computerized periodontal probe—the Florida probe. J Clin Periodontol 1988;15(2):137–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1988.tb01008.x.
19. Al-Shayeb KN, Turner W, Gillam DG. Accuracy and reproducibility of probe forces during simulated periodontal pocket depth measurements. Saudi Dent J 2014;26(2):50–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2014.02.001.
20. Raja SAJ, Kumar TS, Mohan Raj JP, Divya S, Fairlin P, Rajkumar G, et al. Evaluation of first, second and third generation probe after phase I therapy in chronic periodontitis patients: A randomised clinical study. J Clin Diagn Res 2023;17(5):ZC35–ZC41. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/60170.17948.
21. Gupta N, Rath SK, Lohra P. Comparative evaluation of accuracy of periodontal probing depth and attachment levels using a Florida probe versus traditional probes. Med J Armed Forces India 2015;71(4):352–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2012.02.018.
22. MAGO J, GOPALAKRISHNA A, LURIE AG, TADINADA A. DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF INTRAORAL, EXTRAORAL, AND CBCT-GENERATED BITEWINGS FOR DETECTING APPROXIMAL CARIES AND PERIODONTAL BONE LOSS. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2021 Sep;132(3):e120–1. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2021.04.041. Epub 2021 Aug 10. PMCID: PMC9764141.
23. Hausmann E, Allen K, Christersson L, Genco RJ. Effect of X-ray beam vertical angulation on radiographic alveolar crest level measurement. J Periodontal Res 1989;24(1):8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0765.1989.tb00852.x.
24. Natto ZS, Olwi A, Abduljawad F. A comparison of the horizontal and vertical bitewing images in detecting approximal caries and interdental bone loss in posterior teeth: A diagnostic accuracy randomized cross over clinical trial. J DentSci.2023Apr;18(2):645-651.doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2022.08.006. Epub 2022 Aug 28. PMID: 37021254; PMCID: PMC10068384.
25. Lin TJ, Mao YC, Lin YJ, Liang CH, He YQ, Hsu YC, et al. Evaluation of the alveolar crest and cemento-enamel junction in periodontitis using object detection on periapical radiographs. Diagnostics (Basel) 2024;14(15):1687. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14151687.
26. Albandar JM, Abbas DK, Waerhaug M, Gjermo P. Comparison between standardized periapical and bitewing radiographs in assessing alveolar bone loss. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1985;13(4):222–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1985.tb01908.x.
27. Reed BE, Polson AM. Relationships between bitewing and periapical radiographs in assessing crestal alveolar bone levels. J Periodontol 1984;55(1):22–7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1984.55.1.22.
28. Shrout MK, Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW. The effect of alignment errors on bitewing-based bone loss measurements. J Clin Periodontol 1991;18(9):708–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1991.tb00114.x.
29. AlGhaihab A, Moretti AJ, Reside J, Tuzova L, Huang YS, Tyndall DA. Automatic detection of radiographic alveolar bone loss in bitewing and periapical intraoral radiographs using deep learning technology: A preliminary evaluation. Diagnostics (Basel) 2025;15(5):576. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15050576.
30. Hyvönen M, Jaakkola A, Tanner T, Päkkilä J, Kämppi A, Patinen P, Tjäderhane L, Sipola A, Huumonen S, Anttonen V. Quality and findings of bitewing radiographs among twenty-year-old conscripts in Finland. Int J Dent 2021;2021:8894917. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8894917.
31. Tang Z, Liu X, Chen K. Comparison of digital panoramic radiography versus cone beam computerized tomography for measuring alveolar bone. Head Face Med 2017;13(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-017-0135-3.
32. Dhillon M, Raju SM, Verma S, Tomar D, Mohan RS, Lakhanpal M, Krishnamoorthy B. Positioning errors and quality assessment in panoramic radiography. Imaging Sci Dent 2012;42(4):207–12. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2012.42.4.207.
33. Chang HJ, Lee SJ, Yong TH, Shin NY, Jang BG, Kim JE, Huh KH, Lee SS, Heo MS, Choi SC, Kim TI, Yi WJ. Deep learning hybrid method to automatically diagnose periodontal bone loss and stage periodontitis. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):7531. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64509-z.
34. Uzun Saylan BC, Baydar O, Yeşilova E, Kurt Bayrakdar S, Bilgir E, Bayrakdar İŞ, Çelik Ö, Orhan K. Assessing the effectiveness of artificial intelligence models for detecting alveolar bone loss in periodontal disease: A panoramic radiograph study. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023;13(10):1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101800.
35. Jundaeng J, Chamchong R, Nithikathkul C. Advanced AI-assisted panoramic radiograph analysis for periodontal prognostication and alveolar bone loss detection. Front Dent Med 2025;5:1509361. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2024.1509361.
36. Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, Hans MG. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(4 Suppl):S109–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.013.
37. Mischkowski RA, Pulsfort R, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Brochhagen HG, Keeve E, Zöller JE. Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104(4):551–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.02.021.
38. Patil AB, Patil N, Singh R, Razdan P, Singh S, Mathew RA, Banerjee S. Comparative assessment of reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) over direct surgical measurement for periodontal bone loss: A prospective, cross-sectional study. Cureus 2023;15(9):e44608. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.44608.
39. Hekmatian E, Jafari-Pozve N, Khorrami L. The effect of voxel size on the measurement of mandibular thickness in cone-beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2014;11(5):544–8.
40. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, Schoemer E. Artefacts in CBCT: A review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40(5):265–73. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039.
41. van Leeuwen BJ, Dijkstra PU, Dieters JA, Verbeek HPJ,
Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Ren Y. Effect of voxel size in cone-beam computed tomography on surface area measurements of dehiscences and fenestrations in the lower anterior buccal region. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26(9):5663–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04521-x.
42. Cui Z, Fang Y, Mei L, Zhang B, Yu B, Liu J, et al. A fully automatic AI system for tooth and alveolar bone segmentation from cone-beam CT images. Nat Commun 2022;13(1):2096. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29637-2.
43. Qi B, Fu L, Abdelrehim T, Chang JJ, Chang H, Chen C, et al. Ultrasound identification of the cementoenamel junction and clinical correlation through ex vivo analysis. Sci Rep 2024;14(1):27821. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79081-z.
44. Fu L, Chang JJ, Al Hezaimi K, Sasi L, Khan S, Qi B, et al. In vivo periodontal ultrasound imaging via a hockey-stick transducer and comparison to periodontal probing: A proof-of-concept study. Clin Oral Investig 2025;29(5):275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06346-w.
45. Chifor R, Badea AF, Chifor I, Mitrea DA, Crisan M, Badea ME. Periodontal evaluation using a non-invasive imaging method (ultrasonography). Med Pharm Rep 2019;92(Suppl 3):S20–S32. https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-1521.
46. Figueredo CA, Le LH, Nguyen KC, La TG, Lou EHM, Kaipatur NR, et al. Ultrasound imaging of the periodontium complex: A reliability study. Int J Dent 2023;2023:5494429. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5494429.
47 Moore CA, Law JK, Retout M, Pham CT, Chang KCJ, Chen C, Jokerst JV. High-resolution ultrasonography of gingival biomarkers for periodontal diagnosis in healthy and diseased subjects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2022;51(6):20220044. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20220044.
48 Nguyen KT, Pachêco-Pereira C, Kaipatur NR, Cheung J, Major PW, Le LH. Comparison of ultrasound imaging and cone-beam computed tomography for examination of the alveolar bone level: A systematic review. PLoS One 2018;13(10):e0200596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200596.
49. Nguyen KCT, Yan Y, Kaipatur NR, Major PW, Lou EH, Punithakumar K, Le LH. Computer-assisted detection of cemento-enamel junction in intraoral ultrasonographs. Appl Sci 2021;11(13):5850. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135850.
50. Nguyen KT, Le BM, Li M, Almeida FT, Major PW, Kaipatur NR, Lou EHM, Punithakumar K, Le LH. Localization of cemento-enamel junction in intraoral ultrasonographs with machine learning. J Dent 2021; 112:103752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.10.
- Abstract Viewed: 36 times
- PDF Downloaded: 33 times