METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using consecutive sampling. Each participant went through screening using the PUFA index, orthopantomography assessment using PAI, and comprehensive clinical examination to derive pulpal and apical diagnoses. The outcomes were dichotomized. Reliability was estimated using the Cohen kappa coefficient. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was compared using the chi-square test.

RESULTS: A total of 165 participants were examined, 98.2% of whom had a decayed, missing, or filled tooth index >0. Of 4115 teeth assessed, 16.2% (n = 666) were diagnosed with pulpal disease and 7.9% (n = 325) with periapical disease. Interexaminer reliability for the PUFA index and PAI was 0.87 and 0.80, respectively. Intraexaminer reliability was 0.83 and 0.76 for the PUFA index and 0.75 and 0.72 for PAI. For pulpal diagnosis, the sensitivity of the PUFA index and PAI was 67.6% and 41.7%, respectively; the specificity of the PUFA index and PAI was 99.8% and 99.2%, respectively. For apical diagnosis, the sensitivity of the PUFA index and PAI was 87.7% and 75.4%, respectively; the specificity of the PUFA index and PAI was 95.4% and 98.4%, respectively. The PUFA index is statistically more accurate than PAI for pulpal diagnosis and apical diagnosis (P < .05).

METHODOLOGY: Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from nine fresh, unclaimed bodies that were due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP lesions using film and digital PR with a centred view (FP and DP groups); film and digital PR combining central with 10˚ mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (FPS and DPS groups). All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR were analysed using rater mean (n = 5). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was carried out.

RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.16, 0.37, 0.27 and 0.38 for FP, FPS, DP and DPS, respectively. Both FP and FPS had specificity and positive predictive values of 1.0, whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive values of 0.99. Negative predictive value was 0.36, 0.43, 0.39 and 0.44 for FP, FPS, DP and DPS, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.562 (FP), 0.629 (DP), 0.685 (FPS), 0.6880 (DPS).

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.

METHODOLOGY: Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from unclaimed bodies due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP by digital PR with a central view (DP group), digital PR combining central with 10˚ mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (DPS group) and CBCT scans. All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR and CBCT were analysed using rater mean (n = 5). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out.

RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.27, 0.38 and 0.89 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. CBCT had specificity and positive predictive value of 1.0 whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive value of 0.99. The negative predictive value was 0.39, 0.44 and 0.81 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.629 (DP), 0.688 (DPS), and 0.943 (CBCT).

DESIGN: General dental practitioners and specialists in the UAE were invited to participate in an online questionnaire survey which included questions on socio-demographics, practitioner's antibiotic prescribing preferences for various pulpal and periapical diseases, and their choice, in terms of the type, dose and duration of the antibiotic. The link to the survey questionnaire was sent to 250 invited dentists. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and chi-square tests for independence and level of significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS: A total of 174 respondents participated in the survey (response rate = 70%). The respondents who prescribed antibiotics at least once a month were 38.5% while 17.2% did so, more than three times a week; amoxicillin 500 mg was the antibiotic of choice for patients not allergic to penicillin (43.7%), and in cases of penicillin allergies, erythromycin 500 mg (21.3%). There was a significant difference in the antibiotic prescribing practices of GDPs compared to endodontists and other specialties especially in clinical cases such as acute apical abscesses with swelling and moderate to severe pre-operative symptoms and retreatment of endodontic cases (p<0.05). Approximately, three quarters of the respondents (78.7%) did not prescribe a loading dose when prescribing antibiotics. About 15% respondents prescribed antibiotics to their patients if they were not accessible to patients due to a holiday/weekend.