MATERIALS AND METHODS: The panoramic radiographic images belonging to children with special needs from the two teaching dental hospitals in Malaysia aged between 5 and 16 years were included in the study. The evaluation was performed by two observers using three methods (London Atlas, Demirjian, and Willems methods) to estimate the accurate DA. The outcome was determined by comparing the mean of the DA and CA.
RESULTS: A total of 52 panoramic radiographs were available for the analysis. The London Atlas and Demirjian methods overestimated the DA with a mean of 0.05 and 0.20 years, respectively, while the Willems method underestimated by 0.19 years. The London Atlas method was highly precise and accurate, while Demirjian and Willems methods were the least precise and accurate.
CONCLUSION: The London Atlas method of DA estimation is highly accurate and valid for children with special needs in the Malaysian population, followed by the Willems and Demirjian methods.
METHODS: A random sample of digital panoramic radiographs from the database of a dental hospital was evaluated. Two calibrated examiners (κ ≥ 0.89) assessed the technical quality of the root fillings and the radiographic periapical health status by using the periapical index. Descriptive statistical analysis was carried out, followed by multilevel modeling by using tooth-level and patient-level predictors. Model fit information was obtained, and the findings of the best-fit model were reported.
RESULTS: A total of 6409 teeth were included in the analysis. The predicted probability of a tooth having AP was 0.42%. There was a statistically significant variability between patients (P
DESIGN: Single-centre prospective two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Orthodontic Clinic, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult orthodontic patients aged 18-35 years, indicated for DPT and LC, who were fit and healthy with a body mass index of 18.5-25.0, not contraindicated to radiographic examination, not pregnant, and did not have a history of facial or skeletal abnormalities or bone diseases were included.
METHODS: Thirty-eight adult orthodontic patients were randomised into control and intervention groups. DPT and LC radiographs in the control group were obtained using standard scanning parameters as prescribed by the manufacturer using Orthopantomograph® OP300 by Instrumentarium. Scanning parameters in the intervention group were reduced by 60% for DPT (60 kV, 3.2 mA) and 30% for LC (85 kV, 8 mA). A five-point rating scale was used for the assessment of image quality. Images were evaluated for diagnostic performance by detection of anatomical landmarks. Mann-Whitney test was performed to compare the quality and diagnostic performance of the images and the observer agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: For image quality, the control group produced slightly lower median scores (DPT 2.0, LC 2.0) compared to the intervention group (DPT 2.0, LC 3.0). For diagnostic performance, both groups showed similar median scores (DPT 21.0, LC 32.0). The differences between control and intervention groups for both modalities were not statistically significant. The average scores for intra-observer agreement were excellent (ICC 0.917) and inter-observer agreement was good (ICC 0.822).
CONCLUSION: Minimising radiation exposure by reducing scanning parameters on digital DPT by 60% and LC by 30% on Intsrumentarium 300 OP did not affect the quality and diagnostic performance of the images. Thus, scanning parameters on digital DPT and LC should be reduced when taking radiographs.