Interexaminer Agreement in the Radiologic Identification of Apical Periodontitis/Rarefying Osteitis in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network PREDICT Endodontic Study.

INTRODUCTION: Periapical images are routinely made in endodontics to support diagnosis and treatment decisions, but conventional imaging may not readily demonstrate inflammatory changes. This study aims to quantify disagreement in the radiologic interpretation of apical periodontitis/rarefying osteitis between 2 expert examiners and to determine if differences exist based on anatomic location. METHODS: We used 1717 pretreatment periapical images made before orthograde endodontic treatment as part of the Predicting Outcomes of Root Canal Treatment (PREDICT) study conducted within the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Periapical changes were assessed independently by 2 board-certified specialists, an oral and maxillofacial radiologist and an endodontist, blinded to other clinical information. If the examiners disagreed about whether a diagnosis of apical periodontitis/rarefying osteitis was justified, an adjudication was made by a third examiner. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of this radiologic diagnosis in the periapical images was 55%, and interexaminer agreement measured with the Cohen kappa statistic was calculated to be 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.60). Diagnostic disagreements between the 2 examiners occurred for 377 teeth (22%), with disagreements more frequent for jaw location (P = .038) and tooth type (P = .021). Differences between root number (P = .058) and jaw location and tooth groups (P = .069) were found not to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of diagnostic disagreements across anatomic location and tooth type may reflect the inability of periapical images to reveal bone changes masked by the complexity and density of overlying anatomic structures, a limitation that could potentially be overcome with the use of 3-dimensional imaging.

Should dental schools adopt teledentistry in their curricula? Two viewpoints.

INTRODUCTION: Teledentistry is a cutting edge technology that could be used to improve access to care to underserved populations and those in remote areas. OBJECTIVES: To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of adopting teledentistry into the predoctoral dental curriculum. METHODS: Two teams of dentists reviewed the pros and cons of introducing teledentistry into the predoctoral dental curriculum. RESULTS: Viewpoint 1 produced evidence that teledentistry is a cutting-edge technology that can improve access to care for underserved populations in a practical, cost-effective manner. Viewpoint 2 showed evidence that teledentistry is too new to have an evidence base to support its widespread use, legal and regulatory requirements have not been established and there is no precedent for third party payers to reimburse for this service. CONCLUSION: The authors feel that a national teledentistry policy should be developed starting at the state level with stakeholders from the dental profession, dental education, government, patient advocates, and third party payers working together to determine the best way forward.