Efficacy of panoramic radiography as a screening procedure in dental examination compared with clinical evaluation.
- Author:
Seo Young AN
1
;
Chang Hyeon AN
;
Karp Shik CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Korea. chan@knu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Radiography, Panoramic;
Mass Screening
- MeSH:
Alveolar Bone Loss;
Calculi;
Dental Caries;
Female;
Health Promotion;
Humans;
Korea;
Male;
Mandibular Condyle;
Mass Screening*;
Maxillary Sinus;
Molar, Third;
Prevalence;
Radiography, Panoramic*
- From:Korean Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
2007;37(2):83-86
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of panoramic radiography by comparing the results of clinical examination with radiographic findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 190 patients (20 men and 170 women; mean age, 40 years; range, 22 to 68 years) who visited the health promotion center of Korea Medical Science Institute and were examined both clinically and by panoramic radiography. We compared results from both examinations. Treatment options by clinical examination were described as "no treatment indicated", "treatment of dental caries", "removal of calculus", "treatment of periodontal disease", "prothodontic treatment" and "extraction of the third molar". Findings taken from the panoramic radiography were: dental caries, periapical lesion, alveolar bone loss, calculus deposition, retained root, impaction of the third molar, disease of maxillary sinus, bony change of mandibular condyle, etc. RESULTS: The prevalence of panoramic findings were: 37.9% of dental caries, 17.4% of periapical lesions, 44.7% of alveolar bone losses, 62.6% of calculi deposition, 7.9% of retained roots, 26.8% of third molar impactions, 6.3% of diseases of maxillary sinus, 2.1% of bony changes of mandibular condlye and 35.8% of miscellaneous lesions. Abnormal conditions revealed by panoramic radiography which had not been discovered on clinical examination were: 24.2% of the patients had dental caries, 17.4% had periapical lesions, 7.4% had calculi deposition, 5.3% had retained roots, 15.3% had third molar impactions. The opposite cases were: 5.2% had dental caries, 12.6% had calculi deposition, and 9.5% had third molar impactions. CONCLUSION: The use of panoramic radiography as a supplement to the clinical examination might be a valuable screening technique.
