Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology| Volume 93, ISSUE 5, P626-631, May 2002

Comparison of panoramic radiography and panoramic digital subtraction radiography in the detection of simulated osteophytic lesions of the mandibular condyle


      Objective. The aim of this study was to compare panoramic temporomandibular joint radiography, unenhanced and color-enhanced digital-subtraction radiography with respect to detectability of simulated osteophytic lesions of the mandibular condyle. Methods. Three dry human skulls with no obvious temporomandibular joint pathology were selected. Four sizes of bone chips were placed on the anterior aspect of the condyle at medial, central, and lateral locations. Panoramic radiographs were made with and without the chips in place. These paired radiographs were digitized, and unenhanced and color-enhanced digital-subtraction images of the original panoramic images were obtained. Eight observers evaluated 72 randomized images of each modality for the presence or absence of simulated osteophytic lesions of the mandibular condyle, grading the images on a 100-point scale. Results. Az values for overall diagnostic accuracy of the three imaging modalities were 0.5376 for panoramic radiography, 0.7861 for unenhanced digital subtraction radiography, and 0.7923 for color-enhanced digital-subtraction radiography. Digital-subtraction radiography improved the detection accuracy of the original panoramic films. Conclusion. Panoramic radiographs were significantly less accurate in the detection of simulated osteophytic lesions of the mandibular condyle than the two digital-subtraction techniques. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:626-31
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Chomenko AG.
        Structure of TMJ as viewed on the pantomograph.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 48: 332-335
        • Abramovitch K.
        Practical imaging of TMJ.
        Tex Dent J. 1995; 112: 45-51
        • White SC
        • Pharoh MJ.
        Oral radiology: principles and interpretation.
        in: 4th ed. : Mosby, St Louis2000: 205-208
        • Jacobs JM
        • Manaster BJ.
        Digital subtraction arthrography of the temporomandibular joint.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987; 148: 344-346
        • Ludlow JB
        • Soltmann R
        • Tyndall DA
        • Grady JJ.
        Digitally subtracted linear tomograms: three techniques for measuring condylar displacement.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991; 72: 614-620
        • Tyndall DA
        • Phillips C
        • Malone-Trahey A
        • Renner J.
        Validity of digital subtraction of transcranial plain films in quantification of positional changes of mandibular condyle.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991; 71: 748-755
        • Prapanpoch S
        • Langlais RP
        • Dove SB
        • Prihoda TJ
        • McDavid WD
        • Nummikoski PV
        • Preece JW.
        Digital subtraction of TMJ tomography.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1993; 75: 122-134
        • Bragger U
        • Pasquali L.
        Color conversion of alveolar bone density changes in digital subtraction images.
        J Clin Periodontol. 1989; 16: 209-214
        • Reddy MS
        • Bruch JM
        • Jeffcoat MK
        • Williams RC.
        Contrast enhancement as aid to interpretation in digital subtraction radiography.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991; 71: 763-769
        • Bragger U
        • Burgin W
        • Marconi M
        • Hasler RU
        • Lang NP.
        Influence of contrast enhancement and pseudocolor transformation on the diagnosis with digital subtraction images (DSI).
        J Periodontal Res. 1994; 29: 95-102
        • Stassinakis A
        • Bragger U
        • Stojanovic M
        • Burgin W
        • Lussi A
        • Lang NP.
        Accuracy in detecting bone lesions in vitro with conventional and subtracted direct digital imaging.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1995; 24: 232-237
        • Metz CE.
        Basic principles of ROC analysis.
        Semin Nucl Med. 1978; 8: 283-298
        • Metz CE.
        Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies.
        Invest Radiol. 1989; 24: 234-235
        • Rockette HE
        • Gur D
        • Metz CE.
        The use of continuous and discrete confidence judgements in receiver operating characteristic studies of diagnostic imaging techniques.
        Invest Radiol. 1992; 27: 169-172
        • Keppel G.
        Design and analysis: a researcher's handbook.
        in: 3rd ed. : Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ1991: 356-361
        • Grondahl K
        • Grondahl HG
        • Webber RL.
        Influence of variations in projected geometry on the detectability of periodontal bone lesions. A comparison between subtraction radiography and conventional radiographic technique.
        J Clin Periodontol. 1984; 11: 411-420
        • Dove SB
        • McDavid WD
        • Hamilton KE.
        Analysis of sensitivity and specificity of a new digital subtraction system: an in vitro study.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 89: 771-776
        • Ludlow JB
        • Gilbert DB
        • Tyndall DA
        • Bailey L.
        Analysis of condylar position on digitally subtracted Orthophos P-4 and sectograph zonogram images.
        Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1995; 10: 201-209