Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2011
Pre-operative diagnostic radiograph interpretation by general dental practitioners for root canal treatment.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sherwood I Anand
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate which radicular radiographic features general dentists want to interpret, determine which of the radicular radiographic features general dentists interpret and which ones they miss in a diagnostic radiograph and correlate how accurately general dentists are able to interpret radiographic features.
METHODS: 20 general dental practitioners were selected and given 2 sets of questionnaires. The first set asked them to fill out the findings they would elucidate in a diagnostic radiograph while the second set consisted of 30 randomly selected intraoral radiographs to interpret.
RESULTS: In the first set of questionnaires, more than 50% of dentists said they would interpret periapical changes, calcification, root curvature and the number of root canals. Less than 50% said they would interpret canal morphology, open apex, resorption, fracture, number of roots and lamina dura. In the second set of questionnaires, more than 90% missed grade 1 or 2 periapical changes (according to periapical index scoring), resorption and canal calcification. More than 80% of dentists missed extra roots and root curvature buccally while no dentists were able to interpret the periodontal ligament width changes, lamina dura and canal variation (C-shape). Using a paired t-test, there was significant variation in answers between the first set and second set of questionnaires.
CONCLUSION: It is concluded from this study that general dental practitioners are able to detect radiographic changes when they are extensive but they miss periodontal ligament width and lamina dura changes.
METHODS: 20 general dental practitioners were selected and given 2 sets of questionnaires. The first set asked them to fill out the findings they would elucidate in a diagnostic radiograph while the second set consisted of 30 randomly selected intraoral radiographs to interpret.
RESULTS: In the first set of questionnaires, more than 50% of dentists said they would interpret periapical changes, calcification, root curvature and the number of root canals. Less than 50% said they would interpret canal morphology, open apex, resorption, fracture, number of roots and lamina dura. In the second set of questionnaires, more than 90% missed grade 1 or 2 periapical changes (according to periapical index scoring), resorption and canal calcification. More than 80% of dentists missed extra roots and root curvature buccally while no dentists were able to interpret the periodontal ligament width changes, lamina dura and canal variation (C-shape). Using a paired t-test, there was significant variation in answers between the first set and second set of questionnaires.
CONCLUSION: It is concluded from this study that general dental practitioners are able to detect radiographic changes when they are extensive but they miss periodontal ligament width and lamina dura changes.