Compatibility of Clinical and Histopathological Diagnosis of Oral Lesions in Iranian Patients

Abstract

Objective: To determine compatibility between clinical diagnosis and the pathological reports of biopsies from oral lesions. Material and Methods: In this descriptive study, 1146 clinical files of patients referring to Tabriz Faculty of Dentistry from 2004 to 2016 were retrieved and evaluated. The kappa coefficient was calculated for each file for compatibility of clinical and pathological diagnosis. Results: In relation to clinical (40.2%) and pathological (39.2%) diagnosis, irritational lesions of soft tissues exhibited the highest frequency. In 72.3% of cases, the clinical and pathological diagnosis were compatible and in 27.7% of cases these diagnosis were not compatible. The highest compatibility rates were detected for irritational lesions of soft tissues (81.5%) and mucocutaneous lesions (76.9%). There was no compatibility for osseous malignant tumors, inflammatory tissues, granulation tissues, metastatic lesions and hematologic disorders. Conclusion: Approximately one-third of clinical and histopathological diagnosis were not compatible. Therefore, to reach a correct diagnosis, the clinical, radiographic and histopathological views should be evaluated simultaneously.

Retrospective Study of the Concordance Between Clinical and Histopathological Diagnosis in Oral Pathology

“…Regarding the agreement between the clinical and anatomopathological diagnosis of oral lesions found in CUEM between 2008 and 2018, there were 274 concordant cases (74.5%) and 94 discordant cases (25.5%).Thus, in general terms there is no difference in the results obtained from other studies. (Emamverdizadeh et al, 2019;Aquino et al, 2010;Souza, Soares & Moreira, 2014). For agreement between oral lesions, 100% of the lesions, Dentigerous and Residual Cyst, Erythroplasia, Sialolithiasis, Torus, Pemphigus Vulgaris, and Herpes Simplex were recorded.…”

Correlation between Clinical and Histopathological Diagnoses in Oral Cavity Lesions: A 12-Year Retrospective Study

“…However, pathologists may encounter uncertainty during performing the histological examination on lesions under some circumstances, because various lesions may exhibit comparable microscopic views. Thus, the clinical examination can be considered as an effective and important step for confirming pathology results and will also be quite useful in such situations [ 8 ]. Therefore, the initial clinical diagnosis made by clinicians must be accurate.…”

“…Moreover, it should not miss any oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) or malignant lesions, and a close collaboration between the clinician and the pathologist is required in this regard, in order to reach a definitive and right diagnosis [ 2 ]. Various studies have previously investigated the concordance of clinical and pathologic diagnoses, and as a result, they reported concordance rates of approximately between 50 and 80% [ 3 , 5 – 8 ]. Due to the reported discrepancy in the concordance rates between clinical and histopathological diagnoses in numerous studies performed in various places, the present study aimed to determine the rate of discrepancy between clinical and histopathological diagnoses.…”

A View on Polymerase Chain Reaction as an Outstanding Molecular Diagnostic Technique in Periodontology

“…Besides the routine clinical test, diverse techniques of diagnosis are essential in confirmation of the clinical diagnosis. Despite having constitutive benefits, the conventional culture techniques have some disadvantages such as difficult sampling, more time needed for the results, and unable to recognize small quantities of microorganisms [10][11][12][13]. Dark field microscopy is incapable of identifying the immobile periodontal pathogens, and flowcytometry, immunofluorescence assay, etc.…”