Radiographic evaluation of mandibular third molars: an ex vivo comparative study between multilayer and conventional panoramic radiography

Alessiana Helena Machado; Deborah Queiroz Freitas; Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele; Amanda Farias-Gomes; Luiz Francesquini Júnior; Gláucia Maria Bovi Ambrosano

doi:10.1007/s00784-023-05249-y

Radiographic evaluation of mandibular third molars: an ex vivo comparative study between multilayer and conventional panoramic radiography

Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Nov;27(11):6451-6460. doi: 10.1007/s00784-023-05249-y. Epub 2023 Sep 20.

Authors

Alessiana Helena Machado¹, Deborah Queiroz Freitas², Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele³, Amanda Farias-Gomes², Luiz Francesquini Júnior⁴, Gláucia Maria Bovi Ambrosano⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Oral Diagnosis - Oral Radiology Area, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. alessiana.hmachado@gmail.com.
² Department of Oral Diagnosis - Oral Radiology Area, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
³ OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
⁴ Department of Forensic Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil.
⁵ Department of Health Sciences and Pediatric Dentistry - Biostatistics Area, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.

PMID: 37728617
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05249-y

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the multilayer panoramic radiography (MPAN) and conventional panoramic radiography (CPAN) in the evaluation of mandibular third molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) as a reference.

Methods: CPAN, MPAN, and CBCT scans from 33 dry human mandibles were acquired using the OP300 Maxio unit, totalizing 56 mandibular third molars to be evaluated. Three examiners evaluated each third molar according to their position, depth of impaction in the mandibular ramus, proximity between the dental root apexes and the mandibular canal, and the presence of radiographic signs of proximity to the mandibular canal. In addition, when there was a distance between the root apexes and the mandibular canal, it was measured. As a reference, these same parameters were assessed in the CBCT scans by a fourth examiner. For the statistical analysis, the weighted Kappa, Bland Altman, and Wilcoxon tests were performed (α = 0.05).

Results: The agreement between the assessments performed in the panoramic modalities with the CBCT ranged from 66.1% to 100.0% for the categorical variables. Overall, the agreement values of CPAN and MPAN with CBCT were similar. The distances between the dental root apex and the mandibular canal for both CPAN and MPAN were significantly underestimated compared to CBCT (p < 0.05). The intra- and interexaminer agreements of the examiners ranged from poor to almost perfect; in general, the agreements were higher in the evaluation performed in the MPAN than in the CPAN.

Conclusions: The MPAN performs similarly to CPAN for evaluating mandibular third molars and their proximity relationship to the mandibular canal.

Clinical relevance: Preoperative evaluation of lower mandibular third molars is usually performed using CPAN. Recently, a new tool, MPAN, was developed, which has not yet been tested for the evaluation of mandibular third molars and showed similar performance to CPAN in the present study. Future studies using MPAN are encouraged to evaluate other diagnostic tasks.

Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography; Multilayer panoramic radiography; Panoramic radiography; Third molars.

MeSH terms

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography / methods
Humans
Mandible
Molar
Molar, Third* / surgery
Radiography, Panoramic / methods
Tooth, Impacted*