You are here

Home » Content

PERİAPİKAL PATOLOJİLERİN İNCELENMESİNDE GÖZLEMCİ FARKLILIĞI

OBSERVER DIFFERENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF PERIAPICAL PATHOLOGY

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 1995

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this investigation, different sized defects were produced for 273 aiveol periapicals in 4 maxilla and 4 mandibula of dried human skulls. Before the defects were produced and at each stage of the production of these defects standard radiographs were taken from jaws by using parallel technique. For the comparison of observer performance in the assessment of periapical defect from periapical radiographyf three practitioner dentists, three oral radiologists, three endodontists and three oral surgeons evaluated the images on the radiographs as 1} There is lesion, 2) There may be lesion, 3) There isn't lesion, 4) It can not be detected. It was observed that before the defects produced the highest diagnostic accuracy for assessment of the radiographs was obtained in the endodontist group (% 60,78). When the little defects (diameter of 1 mm.) were produced, the highest diagnostic accuracy was found to be % 4S.03 in the practitioner dentist group. However, the highest diagnostic accuracy was observed in the radiologist group as : 61.76 and : 83,32 for the evaluation of middle (diameter of 1.5 mm.)and large (diameter of 2.5 mm.) defects, respectively. Besides, as the size of the defect is increased, percentage of the diagnostic accuracy for assessment of the radiographs is also increased.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
BEI araştırmada, kuru insan kafalarından 4 maksilla ve 4 mandibuladaki 273 alveolün periapikalinde farklı boyutlarda defekt yapılmıştır. Defekt oluşturulmadan ve defektin her safhasında çenelerden paralel teknikle standart radyograflar alındı, Periapikal radyograflardaki periapikal defektlerin incelenmesinde gözlemci performansını karşılaştırmak için, üç pratisyen dişhekimi, üç radyolog, üç endodontisE ve Uç cerrah radyograftaki görüntüleri 1) Lezyon var. 2) Lezyon olabilir, 3) Lezyon yok, 4) Okunamıyor şeklinde değerlendirdiler. Radyografi arın incelenmesinde defekt oluşturulmadan tince en yüksek doğru okumayt endodontist grubunun (% 6078) yaptığı gözlendi. Küçük defekt ( 1 mm, çapında) oluşturulduğunda, en yüksek okuma pratisyen dishekiminde % 48.03 olarak bulundu. Bununla birlikte orta (1.5 mm. çapında) ve büyük (25 mm. çapında) defektlerin değerlendirilmesinde (sırası ile % 61.76 ve % 8332) radyolog grubunun en yüksek doğru okumayı sağladığı görüldü. Aynca defektin büyüklüğü arttıkça radyograflardaki görüntülerin doğru okunma yüzdeleri de artmaktadır
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-periapikal-patolojilerin-incelenmesinde-gozlemci-farkliligi.pdf
  • 2
65-68
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Benn DK.
A
review of the reliability of radiographic measurements in estimating alveolar bone changes. J Clin Periodcmto) 1990; 17: 14-21.
2. Ferguson JW, Cheng LHH, Diagnostic accuracy said observer performance in the diagnosis of abnormalities in the anterior maxilla: a comparison of panoramic with intraoral radiography. Br Dent J 1992; 173: 265-71.
3. Goldman M, Pearson AH, Darzenta N- Endodontic success Who's reading the radiograph? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1973; 33: 432-7.
4. Gratt BM, White SC. Lucatorto FM, Sapp JP, Kaffe I. A clinical comparison of xeroradiograph^ and conventional film for the interpretation of periapical structures. J Endodont 1986; 12(8)* 346-51.
5.
Gürga
n C. Mandibular molar dişlerin bufckal/lingual yüzündeki farklı kemik seviyelerinin radyografik olarak saplanmasında gözlemci varyasyonu. A U Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitisü, Ankara, 1994.
6. Kaffe I, Gratt BM- Variations in the radiographic interpretation of the periapical dental region. J Endodont 1988; 14(7): 330-5.
7.
Kans
u Ö, Ayhan A. Periapikal radyolusent lezyonlann radyografik ve histopatolojik bulgularının karşılaştırılması. H Ü Diş Hek Fak Derg 1988; 12; 81-4
8- Kuilendorf B, Gröndahl K, Rohtin M, Henrikson t&r-SubtruclkM radiography for the diagnosis of periapical bone lesions. Endod Dent Traumatol 1988; 4: 254-9. In: Tammisalo T, Luostarinen T, Vahatalo K. Tammisalo EH. Comparison of periapical and detailed narow-beam radiography for diagnosis of periapical bone lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993; 22: 183-7.
9. Kuilendorf B, Gröndahl K, Rohlin M, Nilsson M, Subtraction radiography of interradicular bone lesions. Acta Odontol Scand 1992; 50; 259-67.
KhMarmary Y, Kutiner G. A radiographic survey of periapical jawbone lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1986; 61: 405-8.
11. Mol A, Dunn SM, van der Stelt FF. Diagnosing periapical bone lesions on radiographs by means of texture analysts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992,73: 746-50,
12. Molander B, Ahlqwist M, Gröndahl HG, Hollender L. Comparison of panoramic and international radiography for the diagnosis of caries and periapical pathology. DentomaJtillofac Radiol 1993; 22: 28-32.
13. Petersson A, Petersson K, Krasny R, Gratt BM. Observer variations in the interpretation of periapical osseous structures: a comparison between xeroradiography and conventional radiography J Endodont 1984; 10: 205-9.
14. Phillips JDT Shawkat AH. A study of the radiographic appearance of osseous defects on panoramic and conventional films. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1973;36:745-9.
15. Pitt Ford TR, The radiographic detection of periapical lesions in dogs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1984; 57: 662-7.
16. Rees TD. Biggs NL, Collings CK. Radiographic interpretation of periodontal osseous lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 141-53.
17. Rohlın
M
. Kuilendorf B, Ahlqwist M.Stenström B. Observer performance in the assessment of periapical pathology : a comparison of panoramic with periapical radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 20: 127-31.
18. Schwartz SF, Foster JK. Roentgenographs interpretation of experimentally produced bony lesions. Part I. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 606-12.
19. Tammisalo T, Luostarinen T, Vahatalo K, Tammisalo EH. Comparison of periapical and detailed narow -beam radiography for diagnosis of periapical bone lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993; 22: 183- 7.
20. Van der Stelt PF. Experimentally produced bone lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985; 59: 306- 12.
21. Wood NK. Periapical lesions. Dent Clin North Am İ984; 28: 725 66.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com