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.
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.