Accuracy of panoramic radiography for degenerative changes of the temporomandibular joint

Accuracy of panoramic radiography for degenerative changes of the temporomandibular joint: Silvio R Oliveira, Rudyard dos Santos Oliveira, Ernesto D Rodrigues, José Luiz C Junqueira, Francine K Panzarella



Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry 2020 10(1):96-100



Background: Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) morphologies are complex, and changes in joint components have been studied extensively. TMJ conditions have many different etiologies, appearances, and relevant clinical significance. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the concordance of the diagnosis of degenerative changes in the TMJ in panoramic radiographs. Materials and Methods: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used as a reference standard. Images of 84 patients (168 TMJs), 61 females (72.6%) and 23 males (27.4%) with an average age of 47.4 years, were evaluated by three radiologists who established the presence or absence of degenerative changes in the jaw heads. The data were collected and organized in a spreadsheet. Concordance between evaluators was analyzed using agreement percentages, statistical κ, and confidence intervals. In the analysis of compliance with CBCT, sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive and negative values, and probabilities of false positives and negatives were also calculated. All inferential tests were performed with a 5% significance level. Results: The percentage of agreement among raters in panoramic radiographs ranged from 66.7% to 82.9%, considered mild to moderate. Correlation between radiographic and tomographic images ranged from 45.5% to 64.9% in the inter-evaluator reviews, representing a very mild agreement. Sensitivity ranged from 28.6% to 58.7% and specificity from 66.7% to 100.0%. Positive predictive value ranged from 77.1% to 100.0%; the negative predictive value was lower, ranging from 32.2% to 54.8%. The probability of false negatives was higher than that of false positives, ranging from 45.2% to 67.8%. Conclusion: The rater did not reach acceptable diagnosis levels.