Does radiographic feature recognition contribute to dentists' diagnosis of pathology?
OBJECTIVE
To measure the degree to which dentists can accurately identify radiographic features and use their findings in the diagnosis of three lesions.


METHODS
Fourteen radiographic examples were used in this study and five features derived from the literature: border sharpness, border radiopacity, lesion shape, lesion radiopacity and root contact. A 'silver standard' for the presence of the features in the radiographic images of the lesions was established by expert observers; and a diagnostic 'gold standard' based on the histopathology of the lesions was available. Dentists scored each image according to these features and gave their diagnosis.


RESULTS
When dentists made different subjective diagnoses for a case, significant differences were found in the extent to which features were reported to be present. The degrees of presence of border sharpness (21%) and border radiopacity (46%) measured using the 'silver standard' were significantly related to the diagnosis of osteosarcoma.


CONCLUSIONS
Radiographic information is not used to its full extent and improvement in the recognition of features and the cognitive use of this radiographic information in the diagnostic process could improve diagnostic accuracy.
Stheeman
S E
SE
Department of Oral Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mileman
P A
PA
van't Hof
M A
MA
van der Stelt
P F
PF
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D003697:Delphi Technique; D003945:Diagnosis, Oral / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D007571:Jaw Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D007573:Jaw Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D015588:Observer Variation; D010000:Osteitis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D012516:Osteosarcoma / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D010026:Osteosclerosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; D011861:Radiography, Dental / Q000592:standards*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results