DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tammisalo, T.
Right arrow Articles by Tammisalo, E. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tammisalo, T.
Right arrow Articles by Tammisalo, E. H.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 23, Issue 2 97-101, Copyright © 1994 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Comparison of periapical and detailed narrow-beam radiography for diagnosis of periodontal pathology

T. Tammisalo, K. Vahatalo, T. Luostarinen, R. Leimola-Virtanen and E. H. Tammisalo
Department of Oral Radiology, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Finland.

The diagnostic performance of the detailed narrow-beam (DNB) technique of the Scanora multimodal X-ray system was compared with periapical radiography for detecting periodontal pathology. In total, 253 sites in 133 patients were examined. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) of both imaging modalities were analyzed in relation to the ratings of five observers for the whole dentition, three dental regions and five types of periodontal lesion. ROC analysis demonstrated that the overall diagnostic performance of DNB radiography was better (P < 0.05) than that of periapical radiography. DNB radiography was significantly superior (P < 0.01) for detecting marginal widening of periodontal membrane space, but there was no significant difference between the two techniques for crestal erosion, vertical bone loss, furcation involvement or calculus. The regional differences found in overall diagnostic performance of the two imaging modalities were not significant. The sensitivity for periapical radiography was 71% and for DNB radiography 85%, and the specificities 82% and 81% respectively. It is concluded that DNB radiography is a good radiographic examination for periodontal disease, and an acceptable alternative to periapical radiography.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
A Ekestubbe, A Thilander-Klang, A Lith, and H-G Grondahl
Effective and organ doses from scanography and zonography: a comparison with periapical radiography
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2004; 33(2): 87 - 92.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
S Lofthag-Hansen, C Lindh, and A Petersson
Radiographic assessment of the marginal bone level after implant treatment: a comparison of periapical and Scanora(R) detailed narrow beam radiography
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2003; 32(2): 97 - 103.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1994 by the British Institute of Radiology.