Imaging Sci Dent.  2016 Jun;46(2):87-92. 10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.87.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of panoramic and occlusal radiographs in detecting submandibular sialoliths

• Kim JH
• Aoki EM
• Cortes AR
• Abdala-Júnior R
• Asaumi J
• Arita ES

• KMID: 2308871
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.87

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of panoramic and occlusal radiographs in detecting submandibular sialoliths.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 40 patients (20 cases and 20 controls) were included in this retrospective study. Cases were defined as subjects with a submandibular sialolith confirmed by computed tomography (CT), whereas controls did not have any submandibular calcifications. Three observers with different expertise levels assessed panoramic and occlusal radiographs of all subjects for the presence of sialoliths. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement were assessed using the kappa test. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values, and the diagnostic odds ratio of panoramic and occlusal radiographs in screening for submandibular sialoliths were calculated for each observer.
RESULTS
The sensitivity and specificity values for occlusal and panoramic radiographs all ranged from 80% to 100%. The lowest values of sensitivity and specificity observed among the observers were 82.6% and 80%, respectively (P=0.001). Intraobserver and interobserver agreement were higher for occlusal radiographs than for panoramic radiographs, although panoramic radiographs demonstrated a higher overall accuracy.
CONCLUSION
Both panoramic and occlusal radiographic techniques displayed satisfactory diagnostic performance and should be considered before using a CT scan to detect submandibular sialoliths.

Keyword

Radiography, Panoramic; Radiography, Dental; Salivary Gland Calculi; Multidetector Computed Tomography

MeSH Terms

Humans
Mass Screening
Multidetector Computed Tomography
Odds Ratio
Radiography, Dental
Radiography, Panoramic
Retrospective Studies
Salivary Gland Calculi*
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tomography, X-Ray Computed

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Radiographic images of submandibular sialoliths. A. Panoramic radiography, B. Occlusal radiography, C. Computed tomographic axial image.

• 

  Fig. 2 Diagnostic performance results with 95% confidence intervals. A. Kappa values for intraobserver agreement. B. Kappa values for interobserver agreement.

Reference

1. Williams MF. Sialolithiasis. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1999; 32:819–834.

2. Marchal F, Kurt AM, Dulguerov P, Lehmann W. Retrograde theory in sialolithiasis formation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001; 127:66–68.

3. Lustmann J, Regev E, Melamed Y. Sialolithiasis. A survey on 245 patients and a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990; 19:135–138.

4. Gritzmann N. Sonography of the salivary glands. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989; 153:161–166.

5. Schwarz D, Kabbasch C, Scheer M, Mikolajczak S, Beutner D, Luers JC. Comparative analysis of sialendoscopy, sonography, and CBCT in the detection of sialolithiasis. Laryngoscope. 2015; 125:1098–1101.

6. Markiewicz MR, Margarone JE 3rd, Tapia JL, Aguirre A. Sialolithiasis in a residual Wharton's duct after excision of a submandibular salivary gland. J Laryngol Otol. 2007; 121:182–185.

7. Sobrino-Guijarro B, Cascarini L, Lingam RK. Advances in imaging of obstructed salivary glands can improve diagnostic outcomes. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 17:11–19.

8. Becker M, Marchal F, Becker CD, Dulguerov P, Georgakopoulos G, Lehmann W, et al. Sialolithiasis and salivary ductal stenosis: diagnostic accuracy of MR sialography with a three-dimensional extended-phase conjugate-symmetry rapid spin-echo sequence. Radiology. 2000; 217:347–358.

9. Jager L, Menauer F, Holzknecht N, Scholz V, Grevers G, Reiser M. Sialolithiasis: MR sialography of the submandibular duct - an alternative to conventional sialography and US? Radiology. 2000; 216:665–671.

10. Madani G, Beale T. Inflammatory conditions of the salivary glands. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2006; 27:440–451.

11. Zenk J, Koch M, Klintworth N, König B, Konz K, Gillespie MB, et al. Sialendoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of sialolithiasis: a study on more than 1000 patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012; 147:858–863.

12. Bialek EJ, Jakubowski W, Zajkowski P, Szopinski KT, Osmolski A. US of the major salivary glands: anatomy and spatial relationships, pathologic conditions, and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2006; 26:745–763.

13. Bodner L. Giant salivary gland calculi: diagnostic imaging and surgical management. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002; 94:320–323.

14. Vaiman M. Comparative analysis of methods of endoscopic surgery of the submandibular gland: 114 surgeries. Clin Otolaryngol. 2015; 40:162–166.

15. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clin Chem. 2003; 49:1–6.

16. Ardekian L, Klein HH, Araydy S, Marchal F. The use of sialendoscopy for the treatment of multiple salivary gland stones. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 72:89–95.

17. Yousem DM, Kraut MA, Chalian AA. Major salivary gland imaging. Radiology. 2000; 216:19–29.

18. Nahlieli O, Eliav E, Hasson O, Zagury A, Baruchin AM. Pediatric sialolithiasis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 90:709–712.

19. Zenk J, Iro H, Klintworth N, Lell M. Diagnostic imaging in sialadenitis. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2009; 21:275–292.

20. McGurk M, Makdissi J, Brown JE. Intra-oral removal of stones from the hilum of the submandibular gland: report of technique and morbidity. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 33:683–686.

21. Koch M, Zenk J, Iro H. Algorithms for treatment of salivary gland obstructions. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2009; 42:1173–1192.