A diagnostic comparison of panoramic and intraoral radiographs

Flint, Diane J; Paunovich, Eleonore D.; Moore, William S.; Wofford, David T.; Hermesch, Charles B

doi:10.1016/s1079-2104(98)90043-9

Cited by 42 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4,12,13 Similar findings have been reported for the panoramic assessment of periodontal bone loss. 4,10,14,15 Dentists are well aware of these limitations 2 but, as previously shown, 6 the majority of patients (57%) in this study had no radiographs other than the panoramic film taken.…”

Section: Radiological Diagnostic Yield and Modified Diagnostic Yieldsupporting

confidence: 82%

Screening panoramic radiography of new adult patients: diagnostic yield when combined with bitewing radiography and identification of selection criteria

Rushton

Horner²,

Worthington³

2002

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To measure the radiological diagnostic yield on screening panoramic radiographs taken of new adult patients and to identify selection criteria for panoramic radiography of new adult patients. Design Survey of 1,817 consecutive panoramic radiographs taken as 'routine' on new patients with statistical analysis of clinical and radiological findings. Setting All radiographs were obtained from 41 general dental practitioners (GDPs). The GDPs provided the clinical information about the patient obtained by history and examination. Collection of material occurred in 1998/1999. Materials and methods Two dental radiologists recorded the radiological findings on each of 1,817 panoramic radiographs by consensus. Those findings that would have been identified from bilateral posterior bitewing radiographs of each patient were then excluded to give modified figures for radiological findings. Main outcome measures Indices of diagnostic yield were devised and calculated for each radiograph from the data on radiological findings. Total diagnostic yield (DY) and modified diagnostic yield (MDY), after exclusion of findings identifiable on bitewing radiographs, were both calculated. Clinical indicators of a high MDY were identified using stepwise multiple regression analysis. Results MDY was 0 for 17% of the radiographs (all patients) and 23% of the radiographs when the asymptomatic group were considered. The clinical variables for which the significance was high (p<0.001) were: increasing number of teeth with clinical suspicion of periapical pathology, presence of partially erupted teeth, increasing number of clinically evident carious lesions, partially dentate status and presence of crowns. Conclusion Taking posterior bitewing radiographs of new adult patients would reduce the diagnostic yield identified solely by panoramic radiography. Using clinical factors derived from the history and examination as radiographic selection criteria modestly improves the odds of achieving a high diagnostic yield from panoramic radiography.

show abstract

Section: Radiological Diagnostic Yield and Modified Diagnostic Yieldsupporting

confidence: 82%

Screening panoramic radiography of new adult patients: diagnostic yield when combined with bitewing radiography and identification of selection criteria

Rushton

Horner²,

Worthington³

2002

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another study 10 compared panoramic and intraoral radiographic surveys in the evaluation of specific dental pathosis in air force personnel. The radiographs of 30 subjects were read singly and in various combinations: panoramic survey only; periapicals plus bitewings; panoramic survey plus bitewings; and panoramic Accuracy of extraoral bitewing radiography survey plus periapicals plus bitewings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The panoramic survey by itself was shown to have the lowest correlation with the consensus radiographic standard when basic military trainees with generalized dental pathosis were evaluated. 10 Authors compared the diagnostic accuracy of panoramic and intraoral radiographic surveys in the diagnosis of proximal caries according to the different dental regions (maxillary and mandibular incisor, canine, premolar and molar). 11 The full mouth series was found to be the most efficient method in the diagnosis of caries for incisor and canine teeth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,9 It was found that panoramic radiography alone is inferior to bitewing radiography in the diagnosis of proximal caries. 10,11 Recently, Planmeca (Helsinki, Finland) introduced a new concept called ''extraoral bitewing'' that can be used with the panoramic unit's optional Bitewing program. Extraoral bitewing images are easier to obtain than intraoral bitewings, and they may help to image challenging patients who have difficulties with intraoral imaging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proximal caries detection accuracy using intraoral bitewing radiography, extraoral bitewing radiography and panoramic radiography

Kamburoğlu¹,

Kolsuz²,

Murat³

et al. 2012

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare proximal caries detection using intraoral bitewing, extraoral bitewing and panoramic radiography. Methods: 80 extracted human premolar and molar teeth with and without proximal caries were used. Intraoral radiographs were taken with Kodak Insight film (Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY) using the bitewing technique. Extraoral bitewing and panoramic images were obtained using a Planmeca Promax Digital Panoramic X-ray unit (Planmeca Inc., Helsinki, Finland). Images were evaluated by three observers twice. In total, 160 proximal surfaces were assessed. Intra-and interobserver kappa coefficients were calculated. Scores obtained from the three techniques were compared with the histological gold standard using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Az values for each image type, observer and reading were compared using z-tests, with a significance level of a 5 0.05. Results: Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.883 to 0.963 for the intraoral bitewing, from 0.715 to 0.893 for the extraoral bitewing, and from 0.659 to 0.884 for the panoramic radiography. Interobserver agreements for the first and second readings for the intraoral bitewing images were between 0.717 and 0.780, the extraoral bitewing readings were between 0.569 and 0.707, and the panoramic images were between 0.477 and 0.740. The Az values for both readings of all three observers were highest for the intraoral bitewing. Az values for the extraoral bitewing images were higher than those of the panoramic images without statistical significance (p . 0.05). Conclusion: Intraoral bitewing radiography was superior to extraoral bitewing and panoramic radiography in diagnosing proximal caries of premolar and molar teeth ex vivo. Similar intra-and interobserver coefficients were calculated for extraoral bitewing and panoramic radiography.

show abstract

“…To be detected by the human visual system an approximate 30% change in bone mineral content is necessary (3). Both periapical radiography and panoramic radiography have been used to assess the periapical status both in experimental (5) and epidemiological studies (6 -11) Several studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of digital images printed on hard copy media compared with that of the monitor-displayed image (12 -14). The purpose of this study was to compare the use of film-based periapical radiographs and digital panoramic images displayed on monitor and glossy paper in the assessment of the periapical status of the teeth, comparing the number of assessable teeth in panoramic versus intraoral radiographs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of periapical status: A comparative study using film-based periapical radiographs and digital panoramic images

Ríos-Santos¹,

Ridao-Sacie²,

Bullón³

et al. 2010

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To compare the use of film-based periapical radiographs and digital panoramic images displayed on monitor and glossy paper in the assessment of the periapical status of the teeth. Methodology: A total of 86 subjects were examined. All participants underwent a full-mouth radiographic survey (14 periapical radiographs) and a digital panoramic radiography. The periapical status of all appraised teeth was assessed. Results: Periapical radiographs allowed the assessment of the periapical status of a significantly higher percentage of teeth (87.4%) Digital radiography had a significantly reduced potential to allow assessment of the periapical status (p<0.01). Only 58.0% and 34.3% of teeth could be appraised using digital panoramic images displayed on monitor and glossy paper respectively (p<0.01). The total percentage of teeth with periapical pathosis was four-fold higher when assessed with digital panoramic images displayed on glossy paper compared with periapical radiographs (p<0.01). Conclusions: Periapical radiographs allowed the assessment of a significantly higher percentage of teeth when comparing to digital radiography, which had a significantly lower potency in the assessment of periapical status of the teeth. Digital panoramic images displayed on a monitor resulted in a significantly higher percentage of appraised teeth compared to digital images displayed on glossy paper. Apical periodontitis was scored more often on paper than on screen, and more often on screen than in periapical radiographs.

show abstract

A diagnostic comparison of panoramic and intraoral radiographs

Cited by 42 publications

References 24 publications

Screening panoramic radiography of new adult patients: diagnostic yield when combined with bitewing radiography and identification of selection criteria

Screening panoramic radiography of new adult patients: diagnostic yield when combined with bitewing radiography and identification of selection criteria

Proximal caries detection accuracy using intraoral bitewing radiography, extraoral bitewing radiography and panoramic radiography

Assessment of periapical status: A comparative study using film-based periapical radiographs and digital panoramic images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About