BACKGROUND: Essential to the diagnosis and management of oral mucosal diseases are visual evaluation and monitoring of the oral cavity. Digital photography has recently become an important clinical tool. The aims of this study were to (i) evaluate inter- and intra-observer differences between oral medicine and other dental specialists when assessing changes in oral mucosal pathology and (ii) assess the influence of calibration labels incorporated into the clinical images on the reliability and consistency of evaluation. METHODS: Ten oral medicine specialists (OM) and 10 other dental specialists (DS) participated in the study. Pairs of images captured with an intraoral camera at two time points from 17 cases of mucosal diseases were presented to the participants. Each pair of photographs was presented with a calibration label (showing length and white to black hues) and again without one. The participants were asked to respond to a questionnaire evaluating changes in size, color, location, and severity for each image pair. RESULTS: Oral medicine specialists had better absolute agreement and consistency than DS when evaluating the changes in the images; however, these parameters did not exceed 52% in either group. The incorporation of a calibration label in the images increased agreement and consistency of evaluations in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up evaluations of oral mucosal lesions are performed better by oral medicine practitioners compared to other dental specialists. The incorporation of a calibration label in the clinical images seems to enhance evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Essential to the diagnosis and management of oral mucosal diseases are visual evaluation and monitoring of the oral cavity. Digital photography has recently become an important clinical tool. The aims of this study were to (i) evaluate inter- and intra-observer differences between oral medicine and other dental specialists when assessing changes in oral mucosal pathology and (ii) assess the influence of calibration labels incorporated into the clinical images on the reliability and consistency of evaluation. METHODS: Ten oral medicine specialists (OM) and 10 other dental specialists (DS) participated in the study. Pairs of images captured with an intraoral camera at two time points from 17 cases of mucosal diseases were presented to the participants. Each pair of photographs was presented with a calibration label (showing length and white to black hues) and again without one. The participants were asked to respond to a questionnaire evaluating changes in size, color, location, and severity for each image pair. RESULTS: Oral medicine specialists had better absolute agreement and consistency than DS when evaluating the changes in the images; however, these parameters did not exceed 52% in either group. The incorporation of a calibration label in the images increased agreement and consistency of evaluations in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up evaluations of oral mucosal lesions are performed better by oral medicine practitioners compared to other dental specialists. The incorporation of a calibration label in the clinical images seems to enhance evaluation.
Authors: P W Kämmerer; R K Rahimi-Nedjat; T Ziebart; A Bemsch; C Walter; B Al-Nawas; F P Koch Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 3.573