| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2011 | Volume
: 23
| Issue : 1 | Page : 54-56 |
|
|
Significance of Clinical Signs in Diagnosing Each Variant of Periapical Pathology: A Random Population Study in 1000 Patients
Rakesh Kumar Manne1, Ramesh Amirisetty2, Khalil Kurian3
1 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Vyas Dental College and Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2 Department of Periodontics, Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, India
3 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, PSM College of Dental Sciences, Akkikavu Thrissur, Kerala, India
Correspondence Address:
Rakesh Kumar Manne
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Vyas Dental College and Hospital, Pali Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10011-1092
|
|
|
Objectives: To find out the accurate prevalence of periapical pathology and to see the significance of the clinical signs in diagnosing each variant of periapical pathology.
Methods: A study of 1000 patients chosen consecutively, who visited the department of oral radiology, for intraoral periapical radiographs. The clinical data of all the variants of periapical pathology were registered in a specific clinical form followed by intraoral periapical radiographs of the same site All the data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using Chi-square test setting a value of p < 0.05 for the prevalence and distribution of periapical pathology and Z-test setting a value of p < 0.05 to see the significance of the clinical signs in diagnosing each variant of periapical pathology.
Results: A total of 584 radiographs were diagnosed with periapical pathology- Periapical rarefying osteitis was present in almost every second radiograph (4127%) and the less common were periapical cysts and infected periapical cysts (6.3% each). No sex predilection in distribution of periapical pathology (p = 0415) and the majority of the patients (36.30%) belonged to 25 to 36 years age group (p = 0.000). Mandibular molars (512%) were the most common and mandibular canines (0.51 %) were the least common sites to involve with periapical pathology (p=0-000). Overall significance of the clinical signs in diagnosing each variant of periapical pathology was observed (p = 0-000).
Conclusion: Our results suggested high prevalence rate of periapical pathology. This study also elaborated all the clinical signs of periapical pathology and their statistical significance in diagnosing each variant of periapical pathology. |
|
|
|
| [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
