Inter-examiner concordance of periodontal findings using conventional periapical radiography

Miguel Simancas-Pallares, Luisa Arévalo-Tovar, Antonio Díaz-Caballero

Article ID: 1729
Vol 4, Issue 1, 2021

VIEWS - 683 (Abstract) 450 (PDF)

Abstract


Introduction: Periodontal disease affects more than half of the population in Colombia and is estimated to be one of the leading causes of oral morbidity. Diagnostic aids that allow the evaluation of its extension and severity are of importance since this will provide reliable tools to quantify the severity of the problem. Objective: To determine the inter-examiner agreement for the detection of radiographic findings in patients with localized chronic periodontitis using conventional periapical radiography. Methods: Study of diagnostic tests including patients with localized chronic periodontitis, the tooth with the worst clinical insertion level and a single conventional radiograph per dental organ using parallelism technique. The radiographic evaluations were performed by two independent and blinded evaluators for the findings: lamina dura, bone defects and type of defect. The agreement obtained was estimated through Cohen’s Kappa. Results: A total of 125 radiographs were taken. The mean age was 38.8 ± 9.9, and 61.6% were women. Concordance for lamina dura was 0.08 (95% CI: -0.04–0.21), bone defects 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00–1.00); type of defect present 0.31 (95% CI: 0.29–0.38). Conclusions: Concordance was evaluated as null, almost perfect and acceptable for the findings lamina dura, presence of bone defects and type of defect respectively. For some findings and given the importance of the diagnostic and therapeutic processes, more accurate evaluations are needed which would result in a higher degree of agreement.


Keywords


Reproducibility of Results; Diagnosis; Periodontics; Dental Radiography

Full Text:

PDF


References


1. Teles R, Teles F, Frias Lopez J, et al. Lessons learned and unlearned in periodontal microbiology. Periodontol 2000 2013; 62(1): 95–162.

2. doi: 10.1111/prd.12010.

3. Contreras A, Moreno SM, Jaramillo A, et al. Periodontal microbiology in Latin America. Periodontol 2000 2015; 67(1): 58–86. doi: 10.1111/prd.12074.

4. 4th National Study on Oral Health. Communication. Bogotá DC (Colombia): Health Ministery, 2015 Contract No. 7.

5. Armitage GC. The complete periodontal examination. Periodontol 2000 2004; 34: 22–33.

6. Andrade R, Espinoza M, Gomez EM, et al. Intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility of manual probing depth. Brazilian Oral Research 2012; 26(1): 57–63.

7. Lewis EA, Albino JE, Cunat JJ, et al. Reliability and validity of clinical assessments of malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1982; 81(6): 473–477.

8. Marbach JJ, Raphael KG, Janal MN, et al. Reliability of clinician judgements of bruxism. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2003; 30(2): 113–118.

9. Lanning SK, Pelok SD, Williams BC, et al. Variation in periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning among clinical instructors. Journal of Dental Education 2005; 69(3): 325–337.

10. Armitage GC. Development of a classification system for periodontal diseases and conditions. Annals of Periodontology 1999; 4(1): 1–6.

11. Page RC, Eke PI. Case definitions for use in population-based surveillance of periodontitis. Journal of Periodontology 2007; 78(7 Suppl): 1387–1399.

12. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1): 159–174.

13. Wolf B, von Bethlenfalvy E, Hassfeld S, et al. Reliability of assessing interproximal bone loss by digital radiography: Intrabony defects. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2001; 28(9): 869–878.

14. Hildebolt CF, Pilgram TK, Yokoyama Crothers N, et al. Reliability of linear alveolar bone loss measurements of mandibular posterior teeth from digitized bitewing radiographs. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 1998; 25(11 Pt 1): 850–856.

15. Hildebolt CF, Bartlett TQ, Brunsden BS, et al. Bitewing-based alveolar bone densitometry: Digital imaging resolution requirements. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 1994; 23(3): 129–134.

16. Tewary S, Luzzo J, Hartwell G. Endodontic radiography: Who is reading the digital radiograph? Journal of Endodontics 2011; 37(7): 919–921. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.027.

17. Rechmann P, Featherstone JD. Quality assurance study of caries risk assessment performance by clinical faculty members in a school of dentistry. Journal of Dental Education 2014; 78(9): 1331–1338.

18. Patel A, Tee BC, Fields H, et al. Evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of simulated small osseous defects in the mandibular condyle. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2014; 145(2): 143–156.

19. Pecoraro M, Azadivatan le N, Janal M, et al. Comparison of observer reliability in assessing alveolar bone height on direct digital and conventional radiographs. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2005; 34(5): 279–284.

20. Pepelassi EA, Tsiklakis K, Diamanti-Kipioti A. Radiographic detection and assessment of the periodontal endosseous defects. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2000; 27(4): 224–230.

21. Lanning SK, Best AM, Temple HJ, et al. Accuracy and consistency of radiographic interpretation among clinical instructors using two viewing systems. Journal of Dental Education 2006; 70(2): 149–159.

22. Delamare EL, Liedke GS, Vizzotto MB, et al. Influence of a programme of professional calibration in the variability of landmark identification using cone beam computed tomography-synthesized and conventional radiographic cephalograms. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2010; 39(7): 414–423.

23. Franceschetti G, Trombelli L, Minenna L, et al. Learning curve of a minimally invasive technique for transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A split-group analysis in a prospective case series with multiple clinicians. Implant Dentistry 2015; 24(5): 517–526. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000270.

24. Luz PB, Stringhini CH, Otto BR, et al. Performance of undergraduate dental students on ICDAS clinical caries detection after different learning strategies. European Journal of Dental Education 2015; 19(4): 235–241. doi: 10.1111/ejeje.12131.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/irr.v4i1.1729

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.