Radiodiagnostics of standard orthodontic radiographs—dental and extradental incidental findings Do we see everything we should see?

• Published in: Journal of orofacial orthopedics Vol. 85; no. Suppl 2; pp. 1 - 11
• Main Authors: Wiechens, Bernhard, Klenke, Daniela, Quast, Anja, Santander, Petra, Skorna, Ida, Meyer-Marcotty, Philipp
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Heidelberg Springer Medizin 01.08.2024
• Subjects: Adult; Cephalometry; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dentistry; Female; Germany; Humans; Incidental Findings; Male; Medicine; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Original; Original Article; Orthodontics; Radiography, Dental - methods; Radiography, Panoramic; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Germany; Surveys and questionnaires; Incidental discovery; Orthopantomographie; Orthopantomography; Fernröntgenseitenaufnahme; Umfragen und Fragebögen; Craniofacial abnormalities; Lateral cephalogram; Zufallsbefund; Kraniofaziale Anomalitäten
• ISSN: 1434-5293; 1615-6714; 1615-6714
• DOI: 10.1007/s00056-023-00483-1

Objectives The extent of undetected incidental findings in routine orthodontic radiographs is still unknown. However, incidental findings that are not in the primary focus of orthodontic diagnostics may be of high medical relevance. Therefore, this study aimed to analyse whether incidental findings are reliably detected and which parameters influence the orthodontist’s assessment. Methods In a clinical cross-sectional study 134 orthodontists evaluated two orthopantomogram (OPT) and two lateral cephalogram (LC) radiographs each via a standardised online survey. The radiographs were previously examined by three dentists and one radiologist—in a pilot phase—regarding the number of incidental findings and subsequently defining as gold standard in a consensus procedure. The radiographs were presented consecutively, the number of incidental findings detected were noted and the individual findings could be described in free text form. Results Overall, 39.1% of the incidental findings were detected. The orthodontists’ focus was primarily on the dental region. Here, 57.9% of incidental findings were detected, while 20.3% were detected in extradental regions ( p  < 0.001). A highly relevant finding of suspected arteriosclerotic plaque was detected in 7.5% of cases (OPT). Significantly more incidental findings were detected on OPTs than on LCs (OPT 42.1%, LC 36.0%, p  < 0.001). As participants’ length of professional experience increased, significantly more time was spent on the assessment ( p  < 0.001), correlating positively with the detection of incidental findings. Conclusions Even in daily routine practice, attention must be paid to a thorough assessment of all radiographed regions. The factors time and professional experience can prevent practitioners from overlooking findings outside the orthodontic focus.