A survey of disease changes observed on dental panoramic tomographs taken of patients attending a periodontology clinic

Routine panoramic radiography of new adult patients in general dental practice: relevance of diagnostic yield to treatment and identification of radiographic selection criteria

OBJECTIVES

We sought to measure the diagnostic yield of relevance to treatment on routine panoramic radiographs taken of new adult (ie, 18 years and over) patients in general dental practice.

STUDY DESIGN

Routine panoramic radiographs (n = 1817) obtained from general dental practice were assessed and radiologic yield recorded using consensus viewing by 2 dental radiologists. A modified diagnostic yield of relevance to treatment for each radiograph was calculated by omission of findings that would have been identified on bilateral posterior bitewing radiographs and of radiologic findings of no relevance to treatment. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used in attempt to identify clinical indicators of a high diagnostic yield of relevance to treatment.

RESULTS

The diagnostic yield of relevance to treatment was zero for the majority (56%) of patients. This figure rose to 71% when the symptom-free patients were considered. Five clinical indicators for panoramic radiography were identified, as follows: clinical suspicion of teeth with periapical pathologic conditions, presence of partially erupted teeth, clinically evident caries lesions, swelling, and clinically suspected unerupted teeth.

CONCLUSION

Routine panoramic radiography of adult dental patients is not supported by the results of this study. The use of clinical indicators to select patients may help to improve diagnostic yield.

Screening panoramic radiology of adults in general dental practice: radiological findings

AIM

To identify the radiological findings from routine screening panoramic radiographs taken of adult (> or = 18 years) patients in general dental practice.

METHOD

Forty-one general dental practitioners (GDPs) who routinely took panoramic radiographs of all new adult patients were recruited. In total, they submitted 1,818 panoramic radiographs of consecutive patients along with basic patient information, radiological reports and treatment plans. The radiographs were also reported by 'experts' (consensus of two dental radiologists). Radiological findings were recorded from the GDP assessments (dentist RY), the experts (expert RY), after exclusion of findings that would have been seen on posterior bitewing radiographs (MRY) and after exclusion of findings of no relevance to treatment (MRYT).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age profile between the study sample and Dental Practice Board population figures (P = 0.26). No radiographs other than the panoramic radiograph had been taken for 57.1% of patients. For the GDP assessments, only 4.6% of patients had radiographs with no radiological findings, while for the experts this proportion was 3.1%. With the exception of the assessment of periodontal bone loss, the experts diagnosed significantly greater proportions of cases as having positive radiological findings. Agreement between dentist and expert assessments varied greatly. When findings from bitewing radiographs were excluded, no radiological findings were recorded on the radiographs of 17.2% of patients. When proposed treatment plans were taken into account, the majority of patients' radiographs (56.3%) had no radiological findings of relevance to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of radiographic examination for the majority of patients in the study did not follow current guidelines. Dentists diagnosed fewer abnormalities than did experts. While many radiological findings are revealed by panoramic radiography, these may either duplicate information from bitewing radiographs or are often of no significance to treatment planning. This study did not provide evidence to support the practice of routine panoramic radiography of all new adult patients.

Practical periodontal screening and diagnosis

The differences in approach between screening for and diagnosis of periodontal diseases are highlighted. The Periodontal Screening and Recording procedure is discussed in terms of its evolution and current application. For patients screened and found to have more advanced periodontal problems a panoramic dental radiograph with restricted supplemented periapicals are recommended. A comprehensive clinical periodontal examination should be performed for these patients, but it is argued that this may be performed after the initial hygiene phase of treatment. In establishing a diagnosis it is suggested that attention be paid to possible risk exposures. Newer, non-anatomic diagnostic procedures are discussed in principle and it is concluded that these do not have a practical application at present.

The use of panoramic radiology in dental practice

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 1.5 million panoramic radiographs are taken annually in the general dental service in England and Wales. The aim of this review was to assess the clinical role of panoramic radiology in the diagnosis of diseases associated with the teeth and to consider its value in routine screening of patients.

METHOD

This was carried out by critical review of the literature.

RESULTS

In addition to common problems with radiographic technique and processing, there are limitations in image quality inherent to panoramic radiology. These factors contribute to a reduced diagnostic accuracy for caries diagnosis, demonstration of periodontal bone support and periapical pathology when compared with intraoral radiography. Routine screening is unproductive for large proportions of dentate and edentulous populations, while in those cases where pathology is detected the diagnostic accuracy can be questioned. Furthermore, the "detection' of asymptomatic anomalies may have no effect on patient management. Attempts to develop and test panoramic radiographic selection criteria are reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

New, high-yield selection criteria for panoramic radiography are proposed as a means of reducing unnecessary examinations, limiting radiation doses and reducing financial costs to patients and health service providers. However, research is indicated to develop further and to test such selection criteria.

The use of radiographic techniques in the diagnosis and management of periodontal diseases

Radiographs continue to play an important role in the diagnosis and management of periodontal disease although opinions as to the most appropriate form of assessment vary. It is important to recognize the limitations of each technique in terms of resolution, repeatability and accuracy so that radiographs can be correctly interpreted to the benefit of the patient. The value of intra-oral and panoramic radiography is reviewed, with particular reference to articles published over the past five years, followed by a consideration of developing computer-aided techniques which may, in time, prove of value to the dental practitioner in the diagnosis and management of periodontal disease.