OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of viewing conditions upon diagnosis of early periapical inflammatory pathosis on intra-oral radiographs, and to examine the effect of observer experience upon diagnostic performance in this task. METHODS: 50 observers examined 18 periapical radiographs using three different viewing conditions (room lighting; viewing box; viewing box with x2 magnification and masking). Their diagnoses were compared with an 'expert' diagnosis provided by repeated viewings of the films by two dental radiologists. Sensitivities and specificities were determined. RESULTS: When 'ideal' viewing conditions were used, optimal sensitivity (78%) and specificity (78%) were obtained. Use of a viewing box was associated with significantly higher specificity than the use of room lighting (P = 0.0016). Use of masking and x2 magnification was associated with significantly higher sensitivity than a viewing box alone (P = 0.004). There were few significant differences in diagnostic performance between observers, but qualified dental staff had significantly higher specificities than 4th year (P = 0.01) and 5th year (P = 0.01) students when a viewing box was used alone. CONCLUSIONS: This study on early periapical inflammatory pathosis gives support to guidelines which recommend the use of a viewing box, x2 magnification and masking for interpreting intra-oral radiographs. It also suggests that observer experience may influence interpretation of early periapical pathosis.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of viewing conditions upon diagnosis of early periapical inflammatory pathosis on intra-oral radiographs, and to examine the effect of observer experience upon diagnostic performance in this task. METHODS: 50 observers examined 18 periapical radiographs using three different viewing conditions (room lighting; viewing box; viewing box with x2 magnification and masking). Their diagnoses were compared with an 'expert' diagnosis provided by repeated viewings of the films by two dental radiologists. Sensitivities and specificities were determined. RESULTS: When 'ideal' viewing conditions were used, optimal sensitivity (78%) and specificity (78%) were obtained. Use of a viewing box was associated with significantly higher specificity than the use of room lighting (P = 0.0016). Use of masking and x2 magnification was associated with significantly higher sensitivity than a viewing box alone (P = 0.004). There were few significant differences in diagnostic performance between observers, but qualified dental staff had significantly higher specificities than 4th year (P = 0.01) and 5th year (P = 0.01) students when a viewing box was used alone. CONCLUSIONS: This study on early periapical inflammatory pathosis gives support to guidelines which recommend the use of a viewing box, x2 magnification and masking for interpreting intra-oral radiographs. It also suggests that observer experience may influence interpretation of early periapical pathosis.