IADR Abstract Archives
A Controlled Study on the Accuracy of Peri-apical Radiography in Assessing Interdental Bone Level
Objectives: Aim: To compare the accuracy of analogue to digital peri-apical radiography in assessing interdental bone level in patients suffering from periodontal disease (1); to identify predictors of deviation from the true interdental bone level by analogue and digital radiography using multivariate analyses (2).
Methods: Materials and methods: Seventeen patients (11 females, 6 males; mean age 54 years (SD: 8.8) in need of periodontal surgery with 50 interdental sites in total were included. For each interdental site an occlusal stent with metal wire was used as a reference to register the deepest defect. Registration methods included analogue and digital peri-apical radiography, pocket probing and bone sounding without and with flap elevation. The latter was considered the true interdental bone level. Five examiners evaluated all radiographs.
Results: Results: The total sample size amounted to 49 interdental sites since one analogue radiograph was not readable. Significant underestimation of the true interdental bone level was observed for all registration methods pointing to 2.70 mm on average for analogue radiography, 2.53 mm for digital radiography, 1.76 mm for pocket probing and 0.61 mm for bone sounding (p< 0.001). Radiographic underestimation varied significantly among examiners (p< 0.001), yet not between analogue and digital radiography (p= 0.110). However, radiographic magnification was significantly smaller for digital radiography than for analogue radiography (0.69% vs 3.18% ; p< 0.001). As shown by multivariate analyses, tooth category ((pre)molars > incisors/cuspids ; p< 0.001) and defect depth (deeper > shallow ; p< 0.001) had a significant impact on bone level underestimation by radiography, whereas type of defect (horizontal vs angular bone defect; p≥ 0.179) had not.
Conclusions: Conclusion: Analogue and digital peri-apical radiographs significantly underrate interdental bone level to a comparable extent, with a significant impact of the examiner, tooth category and defect depth.
Methods: Materials and methods: Seventeen patients (11 females, 6 males; mean age 54 years (SD: 8.8) in need of periodontal surgery with 50 interdental sites in total were included. For each interdental site an occlusal stent with metal wire was used as a reference to register the deepest defect. Registration methods included analogue and digital peri-apical radiography, pocket probing and bone sounding without and with flap elevation. The latter was considered the true interdental bone level. Five examiners evaluated all radiographs.
Results: Results: The total sample size amounted to 49 interdental sites since one analogue radiograph was not readable. Significant underestimation of the true interdental bone level was observed for all registration methods pointing to 2.70 mm on average for analogue radiography, 2.53 mm for digital radiography, 1.76 mm for pocket probing and 0.61 mm for bone sounding (p< 0.001). Radiographic underestimation varied significantly among examiners (p< 0.001), yet not between analogue and digital radiography (p= 0.110). However, radiographic magnification was significantly smaller for digital radiography than for analogue radiography (0.69% vs 3.18% ; p< 0.001). As shown by multivariate analyses, tooth category ((pre)molars > incisors/cuspids ; p< 0.001) and defect depth (deeper > shallow ; p< 0.001) had a significant impact on bone level underestimation by radiography, whereas type of defect (horizontal vs angular bone defect; p≥ 0.179) had not.
Conclusions: Conclusion: Analogue and digital peri-apical radiographs significantly underrate interdental bone level to a comparable extent, with a significant impact of the examiner, tooth category and defect depth.
2349155_File000000.jpg