Interexaminer agreement between two dental specialties for the detection of bifid mandibular canal and accessory mental foramen in cone-beam computed tomography

Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMFR) and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) for the detection of bifid mandibular canal (BMC) and accessory mental foramen (AMF) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of oral research 2022-01, Vol.11 (1), p.1-8
Hauptverfasser: Moreira-Souza, Larissa, Carlos-Groppo, Francisco, Haiter-Neto, Francisco, Asprino, Luciana
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMFR) and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) for the detection of bifid mandibular canal (BMC) and accessory mental foramen (AMF) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods: This retrospective study involved 22 examiners (11 OMFR and 11 OMFS) who independently assessed 30 CBCT volumes from patients (n = 60 hemi-mandibles) under preoperative radiographic evaluation for implant placement. The examiners scored the presence of BMC and AMF in each hemimandible. The interexaminer agreements were assessed using Fleiss' kappa statistics. Results: For intra-examiner agreement, 40% of the sample was reevaluated. The interexaminer agreement between OMFR and OMFS was slight (0.12) for the detection of BMC and fair (0.24) for AMF. The agreement among OMFR for detection of BMC was fair (0.22), and it was slight among OMFS (0.15). The agreement among OMFR for detection of AMF was substantial (0.61), and among OMFS it was fair (0.22). Agreements between OMFR and OMFS were slight for BMC and fair for AMF, independently of the years of experience. Intraexaminer agreement ranged from 60% to 90% among OMFR and from 55% to 90% among OMFS. Conclusion: A slight and a fair agreement between OMFR and OMFS was found for the detection of BMC and AMF, respectively. In general, OMFR obtained higher agreement among themselves, mainly for detection of AMF.
ISSN:0719-2460
0719-2479
0719-2479
DOI:10.17126/joralres.2022.010