DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hintze, H
Right arrow Articles by Wenzel, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hintze, H
Right arrow Articles by Wenzel, A
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2009) 38, 134-140
© 2009 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/31066378

RESEARCH

Comparison of three radiographic methods for detection of morphological temporomandibular joint changes: panoramic, scanographic and tomographic examination

H Hintze*,1, M Wiese1,2 and A Wenzel2

1Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, University of Aarhus, Denmark; 2Department of Radiology, School of Dentistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

*Correspondence to: Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Aarhus, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark; E-mail: hhintze{at}odont.au.dk

Received 11 February 2008; revised 14 April 2008; accepted 14 April 2008

Objectives: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of panoramic, scano- and tomographic examination for the detection of morphological temporomandibular joint (TMJ) changes.

Methods: TMJs in 80 dry human skulls were radiographed using digital panoramic examination, 4x sagittal (lateral) scanography, and sagittal cross-sectional tomography. All images were examined by three independent observers for the presence or absence of flattening, defects and osteophytes in the various joint components. The true presence of the morphological changes was unanimously decided by consensus of three independent observers using naked-eye inspection. The accuracy for detection of the specific changes in each joint component was expressed as sensitivity and specificity values, whereas the accuracy for detection of morphological changes in general in the condyle and in the TMJ in toto was expressed as the number of matching radiographic and "gold standard" scores.

Results: Up to 23% and 9% of the three joint components were recorded as non-accessible to examination with panoramic examination and sagittal (lateral) scanography, respectively, whereas all components were accessible to examination with sagittal cross-sectional tomography. The difference was significant between panoramic examination and sagittal cross-sectional tomography (P  =  0.018). No significant differences between the three methods for detection of specific morphological changes in the condyles and defects in the articular tubercles and changes in the TMJ in toto were found.

Conclusion: No differences in accuracies between the methods were found for the detection of morphological TMJ changes. However, with panoramic examination and sagittal (lateral) scanography markedly more joint components were non-accessible to examination than with sagittal cross-sectional tomography, with which all components were accessible.

Keywords: radiography; temporomandibular joint; digital radiography; panoramic radiography; tomography






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2009 by the British Institute of Radiology.