Evaluation of the interpretation of bitewing radiographs in treating interproximal caries

Abstract

Objective: Misinterpretation of bitewing radiographs may lead to the selection of surgical approach rather than medical approach in treating proximal caries lesions. We aimed to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of bitewing radiography interpretation by various groups of dentists for the detection of proximal caries and subsequent treatment decision-making. Materials and Methods: This in vitro study was performed using 60 extracted molar and premolar teeth. The target proximal carious surfaces were categorized and coded according to the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) as category 1: ICDAS = 0, category 2: ICDAS = 1 or 2, and category 3: ICDAS = 3, 4, or 5. All the teeth were randomly divided and mounted onto 15 quadrants made of two premolars and two molars, and a digital bitewing image was taken from each quadrant. A checklist was given to four groups of participants (dentistry students, dentists with a DDS degree, restorative dentistry specialists, and oral radiology specialists) to indicate for which lesion depth they would intervene restoratively. The data acquired through the checklists were compared with direct visual examination of target surfaces before mounting. Results: Sensitivity and accuracy of bitewing radiography showed no significant difference among the groups. However, specificity was significantly higher in Group D. Conclusions: According to our results, interpretation of bitewing radiographs was different among the groups. Although not significant, the radiologists had the highest diagnostic accuracy than the other groups of participants, and the students showed the weakest performance in the diagnosis of restorative treatment needed. Furthermore, the highest percentage of decision error occurred when lesions had ICDAS 1 or 2, followed by ICDAS 3, 4, or 5, and finally 0 in all the four groups.

Keywords

Bitewing radiographs - interpretation - interproximal caries

• References

• 1 Anusavice K. Clinical decision-making for coronal caries management in the permanent dentition. J Dent Educ 2001;65:1143-6.
• 2 Arneberg P, Hossain AN, Jokstad A. Fluoride tablet programs in healthy elderly subjects: Distribution of fluoride in saliva and plaque with tablets in different sites. Acta Odontol Scand 2005;63:65-72.
• 3 Lo EC, Schwarz E, Wong MC. Arresting dentine caries in Chinese preschool children. Int J Paediatr Dent 1998;8:253-60.
• 4 Pretty IA. Caries detection and diagnosis: Novel technologies. J Dent 2006;34:727-39.
• 5 Murray JJ, Majid ZA. The prevalence and progression of approximal caries in the deciduous dentition in British children. Br Dent J 1978;145:161-4.
• 6 Tagtekin DA, Ozyoney G, Baseren M, Ando M, Hayran O, Alpar R, et al. Caries detection with DIAGNOdent and ultrasound. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:729-35.
• 7 Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Yüksel S, Ozen T. Proximal caries detection accuracy using intraoral bitewing radiography, extraoral bitewing radiography and panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:450-9.
• 8 Angmar-Månsson B, ten Bosch JJ. Advances in methods for diagnosing coronal caries – A review. Adv Dent Res 1993;7:70-9.
• 9 Gordan VV, Garvan CW, Heft MW, Fellows JL, Qvist V, Rindal DB, et al. Restorative treatment thresholds for interproximal primary caries based on radiographic images: Findings from The Dental PBRN. Gen Dent 2009; 57:654.
• 10 Medeiros VA, Seddon RP. Iatrogenic damage to approximal surfaces in contact with class II restorations. J Dent 2000;28:103-10.
• 11 Norman GR, Coblentz CL, Brooks LR, Babcook CJ. Expertise in visual diagnosis: A review of the literature. Acad Med 1992;67:S78-83.
• 12 Jensen OE, Handelman SL, Iker HP. Bitewing radiographs and dentists’ treatment decisions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987;63:254-7.
• 13 Baghdady MT, Carnahan H, Lam EW, Woods NN. Dental and dental hygiene students’ diagnostic accuracy in oral radiology: Effect of diagnostic strategy and instructional method. J Dent Educ 2014;78:1279-85.
• 14 Neuhaus KW, Longbottom C, Ellwood R, Lussi A. Novel lesion detection aids. Monogr Oral Sci 2009;21:52-62.
• 15 Kidd EA, Pitts NB. A reappraisal of the value of the bitewing radiograph in the diagnosis of posterior approximal caries. Br Dent J 1990;169:195-200.
• 16 Braga MM, Morais CC, Nakama RC, Leamari VM, Siqueira WL, Mendes FM, et al. in vitro performance of methods of approximal caries detection in primary molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:e35-41.