4.3 Article

Diagnostic performance of general dental practitioners after lecture in identifying post-menopausal women with low bone mineral density by panoramic radiographs

期刊

DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 249-252

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/16882209

关键词

jaws; images; bones; osteoporosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Mandibular cortical erosion detected on panoramic radiographs may be useful for identifying post-menopausal women with low skeletal bone mineral density (BMD). The purposes of this study were to calculate the diagnostic performance of general dental practitioners (GDPs) who attended a lecture on identifying post-menopausal women with low BMD from findings on panoramic radiographs and to evaluate the influence of GDPs' age on diagnostic performance. Methods: After a 1 h lecture, 111 GDPs were asked to classify the mandibular cortex (normal or eroded) on panoramic radiographs obtained from 100 post-menopausal women who have had skeletal BMD assessment. Low BMD was defined as a BMD T score of - 1.0 or less. Diagnostic performance was analysed by comparing two groups classified by mandibular cortex (women with normal cortex and women with any eroded cortex) with those classified by BMD (women with normal BMD and women with low BMD). Results: The mean sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy and likelihood ratio for a positive risk result were 73.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]; 71.3 to 74.7%), 49.0% (95% Cl; 46.4 to 51.5%), 66.9% (95% Cl; 66.0 to 67.8%), 57.0% (95% Cl; 55.8 to 58.2%), 62.9% (95% Cl; 62.1 to 63.7%) and 1.51 (95% Cl; 1.44 to 1.58), respectively. GDPs' age did not influence diagnostic performance. Conclusions: Our results suggest that 73.0% of women who had low skeletal BMD can be identified by GDPs after a lecture on the use of panoramic radiographs as an aid in diagnosing low BMD; however, the diagnostic performance may not be influenced by GDPs' age.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据