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.
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.
Authors: Marc A Moll; Miriam Seuthe; Constantin von See; Antonia Zapf; Else Hornecker; Rainer F Mausberg; Dirk Ziebolz Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2013-09-26 Impact factor: 2.757