Remote assessment of DMFT and number of implants with intraoral digital photography in an elderly patient population - a comparative study

This comparative study aimed to evaluate intraoral digital photography (IODP) as assessment-tool for DMFT and number of implants (IMPL) compared to clinical diagnosis (CLIN) in an elderly population with high restorative status. Secondary research questions were whether an additional evaluation of p...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	PloS one Vol. 17; no. 5; p. e0268360
Main Authors:	Ciardo, Antonio, Sonnenschein, Sarah K, Simon, Marlinde M, Ruetters, Maurice, Spindler, Marcia, Ziegler, Philipp, Reccius, Ingvi, Spies, Alexander-Nicolaus, Kykal, Jana, Baumann, Eva-Marie, Fackler, Susanne, Büsch, Christopher, Kim, Ti-Sun
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	United States Public Library of Science 17-05-2022 Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects:	Aged Biology and Life Sciences Cameras Care and treatment Comparative studies Complications and side effects Decay Dental caries Dentistry Digital imaging Digital photography Engineering and Technology Epidemiology Evaluation Health aspects Health care access Implants Implants, Artificial Medical diagnosis Medicine and Health Sciences Mouth Older people Patient outcomes Patients Photography Population studies Prosthesis Research and Analysis Methods Teeth Germany United States > US Japan
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	This comparative study aimed to evaluate intraoral digital photography (IODP) as assessment-tool for DMFT and number of implants (IMPL) compared to clinical diagnosis (CLIN) in an elderly population with high restorative status. Secondary research questions were whether an additional evaluation of panoramic radiographs (PAN-X) or raters' clinical experience influence the agreement. Fifty patients (70.98±7.60 years) were enrolled for standardized CLIN and IODP. The clinical reference examiner and ten blinded raters evaluated the photographs without and with a PAN-X regarding DMFT and IMPL. CLIN were used as reference standard and differences to IODP and IODP-PAN-X findings were analysed descriptively. To assess intra-rater agreement, pairwise Gwet's AC1s of the three diagnostic methods CLIN, IODP and IODP+PAN-X were calculated. Compared to a DMFT of 22.10±3.75 (CLIN), blinded raters evaluated a DMFT of 21.54±3.40 (IODP) and 22.12±3.45 (IODP+PAN-X). Mean values for "Decayed" were 0.18±0.52 (CLIN), 0.45±0.46 (IODP) and 0.48±0.47 (IODP-PAN-X), while 11.02±5.97 (CLIN), 10.66±5.78 (IODP) and 10.93±5.91 (IODP+PAN-X) were determined for "Missing" and 10.90±5.61 (CLIN), 10.43±4.85 (IODP) and 10.71±5.11 (IODP+PAN-X) for "Filled". IMPL were 0.78±2.04 (CLIN), 0.58±1.43 (IODP), 0.78±2.04 (IODP+PAN-X). Gwet's AC1 using the mode of the blinded raters' assessment of "Decayed", "Missing" and IMPL compared to CLIN ranged from 0.81 to 0.89 (IODP) and 0.87 to 1.00 (IODP+PAN-X), while for "Filled" and DMFT they were 0.29 and 0.36 (IODP) as well as 0.33 and 0.36 (IODP+PAN-X), respectively. Clinical experience did not influence the agreement. Assessment of "Decayed", "Missing" and IMPL by IODP showed almost perfect agreement, whereas of "Filled" and DMFT revealed fair to moderate agreement with clinical findings. Additional PAN-X-evaluation increased agreement compared to IODP-diagnostics alone. IODP for the assessment of DMFT and IMPL might be a suitable method in large-scale epidemiological studies, considering high agreement in total values and miscellaneous agreement at patient-level.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ISSN:	1932-6203 1932-6203
DOI:	10.1371/journal.pone.0268360