Assessment of Interexaminer Agreement in the Detection of Condyle Morphology and positioning with Two Methods: Radiographic and Tomographic.

Aim This study aims at evaluating the interexaminer agreement between radiographic and tomographic methods to determine condyle morphological variations and positioning. Materials and methods The sample comprised 100 individuals aged 13 to 30 years, from the patient files of University of North Parana. The assessment of condyles morphology and positioning was performed in images of digital panoramic radiography (DPR) and reconstructed panoramic images from the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, by using the Dolphin three-dimensional (3D) program. The condyle morphology was categorized as flat, convex, and angular as well as its positioning classified into anterior, posterior, and concentric. Three calibrated examiners performed this subjective evaluation. After that, another examiner performed an objective assessment of the condyles positioning using tomographic sagittal scans of the condyles, applying the same 3D program. This objective evaluation of the condyle position, considered the gold standard (GS), was achieved by using a formula based on the measurement values of the joint spaces, anterior and posterior. The kappa test was used to assess the interexaminer agreement in determining the condyles morphology and positioning, as well as between the condyle positioning results determined by the examiners and the GS. Results The results showed poor agreement among examiners and between the subjective and objective condyle positioning evaluation. Conclusion It was concluded that the panoramic radiography (PR), either digitalized or reconstructed from CBCT scans, is not suitable for determining variations in condyle morphology and position. Clinical significance Whenever it is necessary to evaluate the mandibular condyle during the orthodontic screening, the orthodontist should consider another image modality better than the PR.