Barrios-Rodríguez V, Cano-Mendoza A, Panico V, Lorenzo-Lara KN, Manresa BC, Tovar-Flores JL

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 99-106
PDF size: 442.88 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: to analyze the quality of the panoramic radiographs performed in the radiology service of the Children's Orthopedic Hospital Foundation (FHOI) in the period from April 2022 to July 2023. Material and methods: cross-sectional study with a population of 2,222 panoramic radiographs, of which 332 were selected, taken with the PAX 400 equipment between April 2022 and July 2023 at the FHOI of Caracas, Venezuela. Each radiograph was reviewed by four calibrated investigators (κ = 0.95) under standardized conditions. Errors related to positioning, movement, presence of ghost images and technical errors were evaluated. Radiographs were categorized as excellent, acceptable, or unacceptable. Statistical analysis was performed using the non-parametric Cochran Q test and Kendall's tau-b coefficient. Bioethical approval was obtained from the hospital. Results: the most prevalent error was tongue not stuck to the palate with 85%, followed by the presence of phantom images in 72%. 69% of the radiographs were rated as unacceptable, 31% as acceptable for diagnosis and none as excellent. The errors that contributed most to unacceptable images were chin positioned up, patient too far back from the focal corridor, and ghost images; finding correlations of up to 0.329 between the variables. The percentage of unacceptable radiographs increased as the number of errors in the same radiograph increased. However, 23% of acceptable panoramic radiographs were found even with four errors at the same time. Conclusion: most errors in panoramic radiography are due to errors in patient positioning, which is why greater training of radiology technicians is suggested. The accumulation of several errors in a single radiograph makes it more likely to be unacceptable. However, the type and magnitude of the error may be more important than the quantity in determining the quality of a panoramic radiograph.

REFERENCES

1. García M, Morales A, Perla K, Rodríguez M. Radiografía panorámica convencional y digital. Revisión de la literatura [tesis doctoral]. El Salvador; Universidad de El Salvador; 2003. Disponible en: https://ri.ues.edu.sv/id/eprint/7948/1/17100206.pdf

2. Fuentes R, Arias A, Borie-Echevarría E. Radiografía panorámica: una herramienta invaluable para el estudio del componente óseo y dental del territorio maxilofacial. Int J Morphol [Internet]. 2021; 39 (1): 268-273. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-95022021000100268&lng=es. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022021000100268

3. Martinez ME, Martinez BAM, Bruno IG. Radiografía panorámica en la práctica den- tal: alcances y limitaciones [Internet]. RAAO [Internet]. 2008; 47 (2): 18-21. Disponible en: https://www.ateneo-odontologia.org.ar/articulos/xlvii02/articulo2.pdf

4. Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Sokolowski TW. Effective dose and risk assessment from film tomography used for dental implant diagnostics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1994; 23 (3): 123-127. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.23.3.7835511.

5. Peretz B, Gotler M, Kaffe I. Common errors in digital panoramic radiographs of patients with mixed dentition and patients with permanent dentition. Int J Dent. 2012; 2012: 584138. doi: 10.1155/2012/584138.

6. Dhillon M, Raju SM, Verma S, Tomar D, Mohan RS, Lakhanpal M, et al. Positioning errors and quality assessment in panoramic radiography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2012; 42 (4): 207-212. doi: 10.5624/isd.2012.42.4.207.

7. Lingam AS, Koppolu P, Abdulsalam R, Reddy RL, Anwarullah A, Koppolu D. Assessment of common errors and subjective quality of digital panoramic radiographs in dental institution, Riyadh. Ann Afr Med. 2023; 22 (1): 49-54. doi: 10.4103/aam.aam_213_21.

8. Yeung AWK, Wong NSM. Reject rates of radiographic images in dentomaxillofacial radiology: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18 (15): 8076. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18158076.

9. Choi BR, Choi DH, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Heo MS, Choi SC, et al. Clinical image quality evaluation for panoramic radiography in Korean dental clinics. Imaging Sci Dent. 2012; 42 (3): 183-190. doi: 10.5624/isd.2012.42.3.183.

10. Khator AM, Motwani MB, Choudhary AB. A study for determination of various positioning errors in digital panoramic radiography for evaluation of diagnostic image quality. Indian J Dent Res. 2017; 28 (6): 666-670. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_781_16.

11. McDavid WD, Langlais RP, Welander U, Morris CR. Real, double, and ghost images in rotational panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1983; 12 (2): 122-128. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.1983.0020.

12. Yagiz A, Ünsal G. Ghost image of an ectopic tooth in maxillary sinus: a diagnostic challenge. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021; 122 (1): 112-114. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2020.05.007.

13. Rondon RH, Pereira YC, do Nascimento GC. Common positioning errors in panoramic radiography: A review. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014; 44 (1): 1-6. doi: 10.5624/isd.2014.44.1.1.