Radiographic detectability of periodontal diseases. A comparison of perapical radiography with detailed zonography

Effective and organ doses from scanography and zonography: a comparison with periapical radiography

OBJECTIVES

To compare absorbed and effective doses from scanographic and zonographic examinations performed in the Scanora unit with intraoral periapical radiography.

METHODS

Absorbed dose measurements were made on an anthropomorphic phantom head with LiF thermoluminescent dosemeters in the regions of the pituitary gland, eye lenses, parotid glands, submandibular glands, thyroid gland and skin. Energy imparted was calculated from the measurements of air collision kerma and effective doses by using the quotient 24 mSv J-1 between energy imparted and effective dose. The upper and lower third molar region was examined with intraoral radiographs and with ramus scanograms, dental scanograms and dental zonograms. Radiation dose measurements were also performed for Scanora panoramic radiography (jaw and dental).

RESULTS

The effective doses for the ramus and dental scanograms were 0.01 mSv, similar or lower than for intraoral radiography. Zonography yielded the highest effective dose (0.03 mSv). Except for the skin doses, the salivary glands received the highest doses. Salivary gland doses were slightly higher from narrow beam than from intraoral radiography.

CONCLUSIONS

Detail narrow beam radiography with the Scanora is an alternative to periapical radiography and is preferred, from a radiation dose point of view, over zonography.

Detailed tomography of periapical and periodontal lesions. Diagnostic accuracy compared with periapical radiography

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of detailed tomography using the Scanora system with that of conventional periapical radiography for detecting periapical and periodontal lesions.

METHODS

We selected for comparison 243 periapical and 322 periodontal sites in 177 patients. Five observers independently assessed radiographs for the presence or absence of the following lesions: periapical bone changes, widening of apical and marginal ligament space, crestal erosion, vertical bone loss, furcation involvement and calculus.

RESULTS

ROC analysis demonstrated no significant differences in the overall interpretation of either disease. Periapical radiography was superior (p < 0.05) to tomography for the detection of calculus. The sensitivity of tomography for periapical pathology was 87%, and 70% for periapical radiography. Sensitivities for periodontal diseases were 84% and 77%. Specificities were 81%, 90%, 77% and 79%, respectively. Differences for sensitivity and specificity were significant (p < 0.05) in relation to periapical pathology. The energy imparted during tomography was 0.92 mJ.

CONCLUSION

Detailed tomography and periapical radiography performed equally well for the overall diagnosis of periapical and periodontal lesions. Tomograms differed substantially from periapical radiographs in both sensitivity and specificity for detecting periapical lesions in posterior regions. The energy imparted during detailed tomography is similar to that from two D-speed films.