Dental students' ability to detect maxillary sinus abnormalities: A comparison between panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography
10.5624/isd.2019.49.3.191
- Author:
Lucas de Paula Lopes ROSADO
1
;
Izabele Sales BARBOSA
;
Sibele Nascimento AQUINO
;
Rafael Binato JUNQUEIRA
;
Francielle Silvestre VERNER
Author Information
1. Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. lucaslopesrosado@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Students, Dental;
Maxillary Sinus;
Radiography, Panoramic
- MeSH:
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Consensus;
Humans;
Maxillary Sinus;
Periostitis;
Pilot Projects;
Polyps;
Radiography, Panoramic;
Retrospective Studies;
ROC Curve;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Students, Dental
- From:Imaging Science in Dentistry
2019;49(3):191-199
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic ability of undergraduate dental students to detect maxillary sinus abnormalities in panoramic radiographs (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study based on the evaluation of PR and CBCT images. A pilot study was conducted to determine the number of students eligible to participate in the study. The images were evaluated by 2 students, and 280 maxillary sinuses were assessed using the following categories: normal, mucosal thickening, sinus polyp, antral pseudocyst, nonspecific opacification, periostitis, antrolith, and antrolith associated with mucosal thickening. The reference standard was established by the consensus of 2 oral radiologists based on the CBCT images. The kappa test, receiver operating characteristic curves, and 1-way analysis of variance with the Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test were employed. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver reliability showed agreement ranging from substantial (0.809) to almost perfect (0.922). The agreement between the students' evaluations and the reference standard was reasonable (0.258) for PR and substantial (0.692) for CBCT. Comparisons of values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy showed that CBCT was significantly better (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: CBCT was better than PR for the detection of maxillary sinus abnormalities by dental students. However, CBCT should only be requested after a careful analysis of PR by students and more experienced professionals.
