Comparison of clinical and dental panoramic findings: a practice-based crossover study

BMC Oral Health

Dirk Ziebolz¹  Rainer F Mausberg¹  Else Hornecker¹  Antonia Zapf³  Constantin von See²  Miriam Seuthe¹  Marc A Moll¹ 

[1] Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Centre, Robert-Koch Str. 40, Goettingen D-37075, Germany;Dental office, German Armed Forces, Munster, Germany;Department of Medical Statistics, Hanover Medical School, Hanover, Germany

关键词: Clinical examination;    Dental panoramic radiography (DPR);    Radiographic findings;    Dental findings;   

Others  :  1125887
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6831-13-48

 received in 2013-06-08, accepted in 2013-09-19,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Aim was to compare clinical findings with x-ray findings using dental panoramic radiography (DPR). In addition, type and frequency of secondary findings in x-rays were investigated.

Methods

Patients were selected on the basis of available DPRs (not older than 12 months). No therapeutic measures were permitted between the DPR and the clinical findings. The clinical findings were carried out by several investigators who had no knowledge of the purpose of the study. A calibrated investigator established the x-ray findings, independently and without prior knowledge of the clinical findings. The evaluation parameters for each tooth were: missing, healthy, carious, restorative or prosthetically sufficient or insufficient treatment. Type and frequency of additional findings in the DPR were documented, e.g. quality of a root canal filling and apical changes.

Results

Findings of 275 patients were available. Comparison showed a correspondence between clinical and radiographic finding in 93.6% of all teeth (n = 7,789). The differences were not significant (p > 0.05). Regarding carious as well as insufficiently restored or prosthetically treated teeth, respectively there were significant differences between the two methods (p < 0.05). The DPRs showed additional findings: root fillings in 259 teeth and 145 teeth with periapical changes.

Conclusions

With reference to the assessment of teeth, there was no difference between the two methods. However, in the evaluation of carious as well as teeth with insufficiently restorative or prosthetic treatment, there was a clear discrepancy between the two methods. Therefore, it would have been possible to have dispensed with x-rays. Nevertheless, additional x-ray findings were found.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Moll et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Dentino AR, et al.: Prevention of periodontal diseases. Dent Clin North Am 2005, 49(3):573-594.
• [2]Sheikh S, et al.: Genotoxicity of digital panoramic radiography on oral epithelial tissues. Quintessence Int 2012, 43(8):719-725.
• [3]Kalinowski P, Różyło-Kalinowska I: Panoramic radiomorphometric parameters in Polish patients. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2011, 70(3):168-174.
• [4]Cerqueira EM, et al.: Genotoxic effects of X-rays on keratinized mucosa cells during panoramic dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008, 37(7):398-403.
• [5]Peretz B, et al.: Common Errors in Digital Panoramic Radiographs of Patients with Mixed Dentition and Patients with Permanent Dentition. Int J Dent 2012, 584138. 10.1155/2012/584138. Epub 2012 Feb 8
• [6]Sitzmann F, Benz C: Single image status or orthopantomograph: statement of the DGZMK. Zahnarztl Mitt 1999, 89(1):33. [in German]
• [7]Freitag V, Seidel W: On the frequency of secondary findings in panorama layer images. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1972, 27:993-996. [in German]
• [8]Nitsch JP: The routine use of the orthopantomograph as a diagnostic aid in dental practice. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1979, 34:231-232. [in German]
• [9]Rushton VE, Horner K: The use of panoramic radiology in dental practice. J Dent 1996, 24(3):185-201.
• [10]Valachovic RW, et al.: The use of panoramic radiography in the evaluation of asymptomatic adult dental patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1986, 61:289-296.
• [11]Molander B, et al.: Comparison of panoramic and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of caries and periapical pathology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993, 22:28-32.
• [12]European Union European Commission: Radiation Protection 136. European guidelines on radiation protection in dental radiology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC; 2004.
• [13]Rushton MN, Rushton VE: A study to determine the added value of 740 screening panoramic radiographs compared to intraoral radiography in the management of adult (>18 years) dentate patients in a primary care setting. J Dent 2012, 40:661-669.
• [14]Rushton VE, Horner K, Worthington HV: Routine panoramic radiography of new adult patients in general dental practice: relevance of diagnostic yield to treatment and identification of radiographic selection criteria. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002, 93(4):488-495.
• [15]Rushton VE, Horner K, Worthington HV: Screening panoramic radiology of adults in general dental practice: radiological findings. Br Dent J 2001, 190(9):495-501.
• [16]Rushton VE, Horner K, Worthington HV: The quality of panoramic radiographs in a sample of general dental practices. Br Dent J 1999, 186(12):630-633.
• [17]Pitts NB: Modern concepts of caries measurement. J Dent Res 2004, 83:C43-C47. Spec No C
• [18]Rushton VE, Horner K, Worthington HV: Screening panoramic radiography of new adult patients: diagnostic yield when combined with bitewing radiography and identification of selection criteria. Br Dent J 2002, 192:275-279.
• [19]Douglass CW, et al.: Clinical efficacy of dental radiography in the detection of dental caries and periodontal diseases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1986, 62(3):330-339.
• [20]Hopcraft MS, Morgan MV: Comparison of radiographic and clinical diagnosis of approximal and occlusal dental caries in a young adult population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005, 33(3):212-218.
• [21]Galcerá Civera V, et al.: Clinical and radiographic diagnosis of approximal and occlusal dental caries in a low risk population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2007, 12(3):E252-E257.
• [22]Sonnabend E, Ring A: Die Bedeutung der Panoramadarstellung in der Zahnerhaltung und Parodontologie. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1972, 27:965-969. [in German]
• [23]Hurlburt CE, Wuehrmann AH: Comparison of interproximal carious lesion detection in panoramic and standard intraoral radiography. J Am Dent Assoc 1976, 93:1154-1158.
• [24]Muhammed AH, Manson-Hing LR: A comparison of panoramic and intraoral radiographic surveys in evaluating a dental clinic population. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982, 54:108-117.
• [25]Heners M, Riotte P: Experimental studies on the radiographic presentation of proximal caries in the lateral region. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1978, 33:228-230. [in German]
• [26]Hein CM, Noack MJ, Roulet JF: The x-ray opacity of composite materials and hard tooth tissues. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1989, 44:536-539. [in German]
• [27]De Backer H, et al.: Survival of complete crowns and periodontal health: 18-year retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2007, 20(2):151-158.
• [28]Libby G, et al.: Longevity of fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1997, 78(2):127-131.
• [29]Grasser H, Barth HH: The importance of x-ray images in the diagnostics of dental, facial and joint disorders. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1986, 41:1110-1113. [in German]
• [30]Rahn R, Czaja J: Fortuitous findings in panorama layer images. ZWR 1995, 104(2):104-106. [in German]
• [31]Hülsmann M, Lorch V, Franz B: An investigation of the frequency and quality of root fillings. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1991, 46:296-299. [in German]
• [32]Klimek J, Kockapan C, Borchert J: Frequency and quality of root canal fillings in the years 1983 and 1991. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1995, 50:154-156. [in German]
• [33]Ziebolz D, Szabadi I, Rinke S, Hornecker E, Mausberg RF: Initial periodontal screen-ing and radiographic findings – A comparison of two methods to evaluate the perio-dontal situation. BMC Oral Health 2011, 11:3. BioMed Central Full Text