Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
CT versus dental X-rays for detecting gum and tooth disease in dogs
By Campbell, Robert D et al.·Published in Frontiers in veterinary science·2016·Department of Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparing Intraoral Radiography and Computed Tomography for Detecting Radiographic Signs of Periodontitis and Endodontic Disease in Dogs: An Agreement Study.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 40 dogs underwent both intraoral radiography and computed tomography (CT) to check for signs of gum disease (periodontitis) and tooth root problems (endodontic disease). The results showed that both imaging methods often agreed on the presence of these dental issues, but there were some inconsistencies, especially with the front teeth. In most cases, using just one imaging method could be enough to diagnose these conditions, making it potentially unnecessary to use both methods. However, for the best results, particularly with the lower front teeth, veterinarians may still want to consider both options.
People also search for: dog dental disease symptoms · dog tooth root problems treatment · periodontitis in dogs diagnosis
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether computed tomography (CT) and intraoral radiography are interchangeable for detecting signs of periodontitis and endodontic disease in dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An agreement study was performed using 40 dogs that previously underwent intraoral radiography and CT during the same anesthetic episode. Images of each tooth were examined by two blinded observers for signs of periodontitis and/or endodontic disease. Agreement between imaging modalities and between observers was assessed using the Kappa statistic. RESULTS: Agreement between modalities for detecting periodontitis in the maxillae ranged from poor to very good (κ 0.07-1.00) with 16/20 (80%) of the teeth having a score of moderate or better (κ ≥ 0.41). Agreement between modalities for detecting signs consistent with periodontitis in the mandibles ranged from poor to very good (κ 0.01-1.00) with 10/22 (45%) of the teeth having a score of good or better (κ ≥ 0.61); 50% of the disagreement was present in the incisors. Agreement between modalities for detecting signs consistent with endodontic disease in the whole mouth ranged from fair to very good (κ 0.21-1.00) with 30/42 (71%) of the teeth having a score of moderate or better (κ ≥ 0.41). Agreement between observers evaluating intraoral radiology ranged from poor to very good (κ 0.05-1) for detecting signs consistent with periodontitis and from fair to very good (κ 0.36-1) for detecting signs consistent with endodontic disease, in the whole mouth. Agreement between observers evaluating CT ranged from fair to very good (κ 0.35-1) for detecting signs consistent with periodontitis and from fair to very good (κ 0.36-1) for detecting signs consistent with endodontic disease, in the whole mouth. CONCLUSION: Performing both CT and intraoral radiography may be unnecessary to detect signs consistent with periodontitis and endodontic disease in dogs based on the amount of agreement between modalities and observers when CT images are acquired and reconstructed in 0.5 or 1 mm slice thickness, except for diagnosing periodontitis in the mandibular incisors.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27630993/