How Available are Panoramic Radiographs in the Diagnosis of Interproximal Caries? A Study with Dental Students and Dentists

Yıl 2023, , 139 - 145, 05.06.2023

Meryem Kaygısız Yiğit , Rıdvan Akyol , Beyza Yalvaç , Fatma Dilek , Emin Murat Canger

https://doi.org/10.58711/turkishjdentres.vi.1253649

Öz

Purpose: It was aimed to investigate the usability of panoramic radiographs without bitewing radiographs in the diagnosis of interproximal caries and to compare the performance of trainee dentists and dentists in the diagnosis of interproximal caries on panoramic radiographs.
Material and Method: 20 4th grade, 20 5th grade students studying at Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry and 20 general dentists were included in the study. In the study, images of 11 individuals who had both panoramic and bitewing taken on the same day within the indication in 2020 were used. Initially, radiographs were evaluated by three Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology research assistants, and caries on the interproximal surfaces of posterior teeth were recorded with a consensus on bitewing radiographs. Second, the participants who agreed to participate in the study evaluated only the panoramic radiographs and coded the lesions at the interfaces of the premolar and molar teeth as “0”, “1”, “2”, and “3” according to their depth. Statistical analyzes were performed with SPSS v.22 software. Results: Dentists were the most successful in terms of correct evaluation of teeth in terms of the presence or absence of caries (80.52%). This was followed by class 5 (67.29%) and class 4 (60.12%) students. (p<0.001). In the evaluation made according to the depth of caries, the success rate of dentists was higher at all depths (p<0.05). In all three groups, the success rate in detection increased as the caries approached the pulp. The least success rates were found in the “1” type for all three groups. The maxillary premolar area had the highest rate of misdiagnosis among the carious surfaces, whereas the mandibular molar region had the best success rate.
Conclusion: Panoramic radiographs can be beneficial in evaluating interface caries, although not as much as bitewing radiographs. The cumulative effect of many adiological assessments throughout the years cannot be disputed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

bitewing radiography, panoramic radiography, interproximal caries, caries detection

Panoramik Radyograflar İnterproksimal Çürük Tanısında Ne Kadar Kullanışlıdır? Diş Hekimliği Öğrencileri ve Diş Hekimleriyle Yapılan Bir Çalışma

Öz

Amaç: Panoramik radyografların interproksimal çürük tanısında bitewing radyograflar olmaksızın kullanılabilirliğinin araştırılması, ayrıca stajyer diş hekimleri ve diş hekimlerinin panoramik radyograflarda interproksimal çürük tanısındaki performanslarının karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.
Yöntem: Çalışmaya Erciyes Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesinde eğitim gören 20 dönem 4, 20 dönem 5 öğrencisi ve 20 diş hekimi dahil edildi. Çalışmada 2020 yılı içerisinde endikasyon dahilinde aynı gün içerisinde hem panoramik hem de bitewing grafileri alınmış 11 bireyin görüntüleri kullanıldı. İlk olarak üç Ağız, Diş ve Çene Radyolojisi araştırma görevlisi tarafından radyograflar değerlendirildi ve bitewing radyograflarda posterior dişlerin interproksimal yüzeylerindeki çürükler ortak bir görüşle kaydedildi. İkinci
olarak da çalışmaya katılmayı kabul eden katılımcılar sadece panoramik radyografları değerlendirerek premolar ve molar dişlerin arayüzlerinde çürük olarak değerlendirdikleri lezyonları derinliklerine göre “0”, “1”, “2” ve “3” olarak hazırlanan forma kodladılar. İstatistiksel analizler SPSS v.22 yazılımı ile gerçekleştirildi.
Bulgular: Dişlerin çürüğün varlığı ya da yokluğu açısından doğru değerlendirme bakımından en başarılı olanlar pratisyen diş hekimleriydi (%80,52). Bunu dönem 5 (%67,29) ve dönem 4 (%60,12) öğrencileri takip etmekteydi. (p<0,001). Çürüklerin derinliğine göre yapılan değerlendirmede ise, tüm derinliklerde yine diş hekimlerinin başarı oranı daha yüksekti (p<0,05). Her üç grupta da çürük pulpaya yaklaştıkça tespit
edilmesindeki başarı oranı artmaktaydı. En az başarı oranları ise, her üç grup için “1” tipinde bulundu. Çürük bulunan yüzeyler içerisinde hatalı teşhis oranı en yüksek olan bölge üst premolar bölgesiyken, en başarılı bölge ise alt molar bölgeydi.
Sonuç: Panoramik radyograflar arayüz çürüklerinin değerlendirilmesinde, bitewing radyograflar kadar olmasa da yararlı olabilir. Bunda yıllar içerisinde çok sayıda radyograf değerlendirmenin etkisi yadsınamaz.

Anahtar Kelimeler

panoramik radyografi, bitewing radyografi, interproksimal çürük

Kaynakça

• 1. Mejàre I, Stenlund H, Zelezny-Holmlund C. Caries incidence and lesion progression from adolescence to young adulthood: a prospective 15-year cohort study in Sweden. Caries Res. 2004;38(2):130-41.
• 2. Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol. 2014;6(10):794- 807.
• 3. White SC, Pharoah MJ. White and Pharoah’s Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.
• 4. Arnold W, Gaengler P, Saeuberlich E. Distribution and volumetric assessment of initial approximal caries lesions in human premolars and permanent molars using computeraided three-dimensional reconstruction. Arch Oral Biol. 2000;45(12):1065-71.
• 5. Allison PJ, Schwartz S. Interproximal contact points and proximal caries in posterior primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2003;25(4):334-40.
• 6. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Danielsen B, Nyvad B. Reliability of visual examination, fibre-optic transillumination, and bite-wing radiography, and reproducibility of direct visual examination following tooth separation for the identification of cavitated carious lesions in contacting approximal surfaces. Caries Res. 1998;32(3):204-9.
• 7. Wenzel A. Radiographic display of carious lesions and cavitation in approximal surfaces: advantages and drawbacks of conventional and advanced modalities. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(4):251-64.
• 8. Braga MM, Mendes FM, Ekstrand KR. Detection activity assessment and diagnosis of dental caries lesions. Dent Clin North Am. 2010;54(3):479-93.
• 9. Wenzel A. Bitewing and digital bitewing radiography for detection of caries lesions. J Dent R. 2004;83(1_ suppl):72-5.
• 10. Wenzel A. A review of dentists’ use of digital radiography and caries diagnosis with digital systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(5):307-14.
• 11. Cucinotta D, Vanelli M. WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Biomed. 2020;91(1):157-60.
• 12. Jamal M, Shah M, Almarzooqi SH, Aber H, Khawaja S, El Abed R, et al. Overview of transnational recommendations for COVID-19 transmission control in dental care settings. Oral Dis. 2021;27 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):655-64.
• 13. Hamedani S, Farshidfar N. The practice of oral and maxillofacial radiology during COVID-19 outbreak. Oral Radiol. 2020;36(4):400-3.
• 14. Lian L, Zhu T, Zhu F, Zhu H. Deep learning for caries detection and classification. Diagnostics. 2021;11(9):1672.
• 15. Rindal DB, Gordan VV, Litaker MS, Bader JD, Fellows JL, Qvist V, et al. Methods dentists use to diagnose primary caries lesions prior to restorative treatment: findings from The Dental PBRN. J Dent. 2010;38(12):1027-32.
• 16. Zangooei Booshehry M, Davari A, Ezoddini Ardakani F, NRashidi Nejad MR. Efficacy of application of pseudocolor filters in the detection of interproximal caries. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2010;4(3):79-82.
• 17. Koob A, Sanden E, Hassfeld S, Staehle HJ, Eickholz P. Effect of digital filtering on the measurement of the depth of proximal caries under different exposure conditions. Am J Dent. 2004;17(6):388-93.
• 18. Janjic Rankovic M, Kapor S, Khazaei Y, Crispin A, Schüler I, Krause F, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(11):6069-79.
• 19. Kaur H, Gupta H, Dadlani H, Kochhar GK, Singh G, Bhasin R, et al. Delaying intraoral radiographs during the COVID-19 pandemic: A conundrum. Biomed Res Int. 2022:8432856. doi:10.1155/2022/8432856.
• 20. Meng L, Hua F, Bian Z. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): emerging and future challenges for dental and oral medicine. J Dent Res. 2020;99(5):481-7.
• 21. Akkaya N, Kansu O, Kansu H, Cagirankaya L, Arslan U. Comparing the accuracy of panoramic and intraoral radiography in the diagnosis of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(3):170-4.
• 22. Akarslan Z, Akdevelioglu M, Güngör K, Erten H. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of bitewing, periapical, unfiltered and filtered digital panoramic images for approximal caries detection in posterior teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(8):458-63.
• 23. Scarfe WC, Langlais RP, Nummikoski P, Dove SB, McDavid WD, Deahl ST, et al. Clinical comparison of two panoramic modalities and posterior bite-wing radiography in the detection of proximal dental caries. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994;77(2):195-207.
• 24. Abdinian M, Razavi SM, Faghihian R, Samety AA, Faghihian E. Accuracy of digital bitewing radiography versus different views of digital panoramic radiography for detection of proximal caries. J Dent (Tehran). 2015;12(4):290-7.
• 25. Wenzel A. Digital radiography and caries diagnosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1998;27(1):3-11.
• 26. Møystad A, Svanaes D, Risnes S, Larheim T, Gröndahl H. Detection of approximal caries with a storage phosphor system. A comparison of enhanced digital images with dental X-ray film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1996;25(4):202-6.
• 27. Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB, Platin E, Nair M. A comparison of Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film and the Siemens Sidexis digital imaging system for caries detection using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998;85(1):113-8.
• 28. Eickholz P, Kolb I, Lenhard M, Hassfeld S, Staehle H. Digital radiography of interproximal caries: effect of different filters. Caries Res. 1999;33(3):234-41.