Zeynep Betül Arslan1, Hilal Demir2, Dila Berker Yıldız3, Füsun Yaşar4. 1. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Konya Oral and Dental Health Center, Konya, Turkey. 3. Konya Oral and Dental Health Hospital, Konya, Turkey. 4. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of imaging techniques in diagnosing periapical lesions. METHODS: Imaging records of 80 patients (51 females, 29 males, aged between 14 and 75 years) including periapical and panoramic radiographs and ultrasonographic images were selected from databases of Selcuk University Dentistry Faculty. Periapical radiographs were accepted as gold-standard and 160 anterior maxillary and mandibular teeth with or without periapical lesion were included to the study. Three specialist observers (dental radiologists) evaluated the presence and appearance of periapical lesions on panoramic radiograph and ultrasonographic images.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic value of panoramic radiographs and ultrasonography were determined. RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.80 and 0.77 for ultrasonographic images and panoramic radiographs, respectively which shows that periapical lesion was correctly detected in 80% of the cases with ultrasound and in 77% of the cases with panoramic radiography. Specificity values were determined as 0.97 for ultrasound and 0.95 for panoramic radiography. Overall diagnostic accuracy was 0.86 and 0.84 for ultrasound and panoramic radiography, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Periapical and panoramic radiographs are commonly used to visualize periapical lesions. Besides, ultrasonography is an alternative method to digital radiographic techniques in the diagnosis of anterior teeth with periapical lesions.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of imaging techniques in diagnosing periapical lesions. METHODS: Imaging records of 80 patients (51 females, 29 males, aged between 14 and 75 years) including periapical and panoramic radiographs and ultrasonographic images were selected from databases of Selcuk University Dentistry Faculty. Periapical radiographs were accepted as gold-standard and 160 anterior maxillary and mandibular teeth with or without periapical lesion were included to the study. Three specialist observers (dental radiologists) evaluated the presence and appearance of periapical lesions on panoramic radiograph and ultrasonographic images.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic value of panoramic radiographs and ultrasonography were determined. RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.80 and 0.77 for ultrasonographic images and panoramic radiographs, respectively which shows that periapical lesion was correctly detected in 80% of the cases with ultrasound and in 77% of the cases with panoramic radiography. Specificity values were determined as 0.97 for ultrasound and 0.95 for panoramic radiography. Overall diagnostic accuracy was 0.86 and 0.84 for ultrasound and panoramic radiography, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Periapical and panoramic radiographs are commonly used to visualize periapical lesions. Besides, ultrasonography is an alternative method to digital radiographic techniques in the diagnosis of anterior teeth with periapical lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic imaging; Digital Dental Radiography; Periapical Diseases; Ultrasonography
Authors: Namita Raghav; Sujatha S Reddy; A G Giridhar; Srinivas Murthy; B K Yashodha Devi; N Santana; N Rakesh; Atul Kaushik Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2010-09
Authors: Carlos Estrela; Mike Reis Bueno; Cláudio Rodrigues Leles; Bruno Azevedo; José Ribamar Azevedo Journal: J Endod Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Thásia L D Ferreira; Andre Luiz F Costa; Maria José A Tucunduva; Raul R Tucunduva-Neto; Elio H Shinohara; Cláudio F de Freitas Journal: J Oral Biol Craniofac Res Date: 2016-10-15
Authors: Mohamed Elbarbary; Adam Sgro; Saber Khazaei; Michael Goldberg; Howard C Tenenbaum; Amir Azarpazhooh Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.573