A study to determine the added value of 740 screening panoramic radiographs compared to intraoral radiography in the management of adult (&gt;18 years) dentate patients in a primary care setting

Rushton, Michael N.; Rushton, V E

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.018

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, in routine dental health check of adult patients DPR is not necceassary. This is in accord with other authors [13-15,18]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Therefore, the preparation of a DPR including meticulous x-ray findings in the context of a first dental (check-up) examination can be a helpful measure. In contrast, Rushton and Rushton (2012) in comparing 740 DPR and intraoral radiographs showed, that only in 32 DPR additional information were found [13]. The authors conclude that there is no reason for the use for DPRs in routine dental health examinations [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, Rushton and Rushton (2012) in comparing 740 DPR and intraoral radiographs showed, that only in 32 DPR additional information were found [13]. The authors conclude that there is no reason for the use for DPRs in routine dental health examinations [13]. The European Guideline on Radiation in Dental Radiography Issue No.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular problems, i.e. suspicion on carious lesions and periapicale problems bitewing radiographs and/or periapicale radiographs, respectively, are the method of choice [13]. Nevertheless, DPRs nowadays are commonly used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAim 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsFindings 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.ConclusionsWith 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.

show abstract

“…Accordingly, in routine dental health check of adult patients DPR is not necceassary. This is in accord with other authors [13-15,18]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…'Screening' panoramic radiography has little evidence of efficacy and its use as the primary imaging method for caries detection does not match the research evidence of inferior diagnostic accuracy. 10 Should endodontic and other treatments be reviewed radiographically and, if so, how often? Is it justifiable to check the development of children's teeth using radiography?…”

Section: Radiographic Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%