Search

Panoramic and periapical radiography was performed on 100 patients. Five observers each registered the scores for marginal bone level, presence of bone defects and furcation involvement in the radiographs of 20 patients and the results were compared. The overall concordance in scoring the marginal bone level was high when panoramic and periapical radiography was compared. In the upper arch, 66% of the sites showed concordant scores, 31% deviated by one and 3% by two score-points. In the lower arch, 74% of sites had concordant scores, 25% deviated by one and 1% by two score-points. The panoramic radiographs more often indicated a more severe bone loss than the periapical radiographs. The concordance was related to the degree of bone loss. In sites with no bone loss the concordance was high whereas it was lower in those with severe bone loss. The concordance of the two radiographic methods for the mandibular canine, premolars and first molar was equally as high as the intra-observer overall agreement, but lowest for the mandibular central incisors and the maxillary molars. Bone defects were more easily identified by periapical radiography.

Five observers assessed the panoramic and full-mouth (14 periapical and four posterior bitewing) radiographs of 20 patients each for the ability to interpret and measure the marginal bone level. The image quality of each site was classified as excellent, acceptable or unacceptable. Depiction errors affecting interpretability and measurability were also noted. In the upper arch, the frequency of uninterpretable and non-measurable sites was almost equal for panoramic and periapical radiography. Image quality was better with periapical radiography in the lower arch. In the posterior regions of both arches, more sites could not be measured from panoramic compared with bitewing radiographs. Due to overlapping the distal surface of the maxillary canine and the mesial surface of the first maxillary premolar could often not be interpreted in either panoramic or periapical radiographs, but infrequently in the bitewings. In the lower arch, the most frequent depiction error was inadequate density in the incisor region of panoramic radiographs. On the basis of these results, we proposed that in clinical practice the panoramic radiograph can be supplemented with individually selected periapicals. In epidemiological studies, the panoramic radiograph should be combined with a premolar bitewing radiograph.

A study is reported comparing the diagnostic yield of panoramic and posterior bitewing radiographs when used to image periodontal bone disease. It is concluded that there is a high concordance between the findings from the two types of radiographs but that the concordance varies with the degree of bone loss and tooth type. Consequently when panoramic radiography is used in clinical practice, the examination should be supplemented by intraoral radiographs in regions when image quality is poor in the panoramic image and where there are structures of special interest.