Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A BSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this 5-year longitudinal study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of panoramic radiography (PR) in identifying oral pathology at a tertiary care facility. Methods: A retrospective review of patient files was done, encompassing those of patients who had PR for suspected oral lesions, followed by a biopsy. At various times, several diagnostic accuracy metrics were computed, such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Results: The research had 250 patients in total. In terms of identifying oral pathology, PR showed a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 90%. There were 80% and 92% PPV and NPV, respectively. With a computed DOR of 25, PR’s total discriminating power was found to be high. Conclusion: In summary, PR consistently demonstrates great diagnostic accuracy in identifying oral pathology at a tertiary care facility. These results confirm that PR is a useful screening technique for oral lesions in standard clinical practice. In order to overcome PR’s shortcomings and investigate methods for enhancing its diagnostic effectiveness, more investigation is necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nayak et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: