title: Panoramic measures for oral bone mass in detecting osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: Different quantitative and qualitative indices calculated on oral panoramic radiographs have been proposed as useful tools to screen for reduced skeletal bone mineral density (BMD). Our aim was to systematically review the literature on linear and qualitative panoramic measures and to assess the accuracy of these indices by performing a meta-analysis of their sensitivity and specificity. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. Fifty studies were included in the qualitative appraisal and 19 were considered for meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies, assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool, was on average low. Three indices were reported by most of the studies: mandibular cortical width, panoramic mandibular index, and the Klemetti index. Mandibular cortical width presented with a better accuracy in excluding osteopenia/osteoporosis (specificity), since patients with a cortical width more than 4 mm had a normal BMD in 90% of the cases. Almost all studies used a cutoff of 0.3 for the panoramic mandibular index, resulting in an estimated sensitivity and specificity in detecting reduced BMD, respectively, of 0.723 (SE 0.160; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.352-0.926) and 0.733 (SE 0.066; 95% CI, 0.587-0.841). The presence of any kind of mandibular cortical erosion gave an estimated sensitivity and specificity in detecting reduced BMD, respectively, of 0.789 (SE 0.031; 95% CI, 0.721-0.843) and 0.562 (SE 0.047; 95% CI, 0.47-0.651) and a sensitivity and specificity in detecting osteoporosis, respectively, of 0.806 (SE 0.105; 95% CI, 0.528-0.9200) and 0.643 (SE 0.109; 95% CI, 0.417-0.820). The mandibular cortical width, panoramic mandibular index, and Klemetti index are overall useful tools that potentially could be used by dentists to screen for low BMD. Their limitations are mainly related to the experience/agreement between different operators and the different image quality and magnification of the panoramic radiographs.
authors.affiliation: Periodontology Unit, Department of Clinical Research, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom elena.calciolari.12@ucl.ac.uk.
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Calciolari
authors.affiliation: Periodontology Unit, Department of Clinical Research, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Donos
authors.affiliation: Periodontology Unit, Department of Clinical Research, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan, South Korea.
authors.forename: J C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Park
authors.affiliation: Biostatistics Unit, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Petrie
authors.affiliation: Periodontology Unit, Department of Clinical Research, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Mardas
mesh_terms: D015502:Absorptiometry, Photon; D015519:Bone Density / Q000502:physiology*; D001851:Bone Diseases, Metabolic / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D006801:Humans; D008336:Mandibular Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D010024:Osteoporosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D011862:Radiography, Panoramic / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
keywords: bone density; bone resorption; dental radiography; metabolic bone disease; panoramic radiography; pathologic bone demineralization