Capability of dental practitioners to identify condylar changes on orthopantomograms: a multicenter cross-sectional study in Pakistan.

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive understanding of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) anatomy and Condylar changes is pivotal in facilitating the accurate diagnosis and proficient management of patients exhibiting TMJ dysfunction. This study is focused on assessing the Pakistani dental practitioner's ability to identify condylar changes on OPGs and compare diagnostic accuracy across different dental specialities.

METHODS

Cross sectional study method was used. WHO calculator was used to determine a sample size of 385, maintaining a 5% margin of error, and a 95% confidence level. A non-probability consecutive method of sampling was used for the sampling process to ensure a steady inclusion of participants over the study duration.

RESULTS

A total of 385 dental practitioners participated in the study, comprising 100 (26.0%) males and 285 (74.0%) females. House officers that participated in the study were 146 (37.9) 127 (33%) were postgraduates, 78 (20.3%) were general dentists and 14 (3.6%) were consultants. The results indicated that 251 (65.2%) of the participants observed the condyles on both sides in OPGs during their daily practice. Only 17.1% of practitioners demonstrated complete agreement across all six OPGs, highlighting substantial variability in diagnostic accuracy. General dentistry consistently demonstrated the highest accuracy rates in identifying condylar hyperplasia (61.9%), flattening (58%), Sclerosis (46.3%), deviation/dislocation (64%), hypoplasia (50.4%), and surface erosion (56.9%) in comparison to other specialities.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the study conclude that in certain cases, Pakistani general dentists performed better in terms of correctly identifying OPGs. However, in other cases specialists were equally proficient in recognizing various condylar alterations. This study identified significant gaps in knowledge in the correct identification of condylar changes among dental practitioners both at specialists and general dentist's level. These results suggest us that additional training might be needed equally, at regular intervals for both general and specialist dentists.