Bite–wing radiography has been recommended for use in adolescents as clinical examinations alone may lead to underestimation of carious lesions in approximal and occlusal surfaces. The aim of this study was to describe the relationship between clinical and radiographic caries diagnoses among 12–year–old Lithuanians using a new clinical scoring system which differentiates between cavitated and non–cavitated caries lesions. Eight hundred and seventy–two children were examined clinically and two standardized posterior bite–wing radiographs were taken of each participant. Bite–wing radiography contributed significantly to the total number of lesions diagnosed only at the dentin level in approximal surfaces. Clinical examination performed better than radiographic examination at the non–cavitated/enamel level, particularly on occlusal surfaces. Less than 2% of the clinically sound surfaces were diagnosed with dentin lesions/fillings radiographically. When using the cavitated level of clinical diagnosis, the frequency of ‘hidden’ caries lesions increased from 1.9 to 2.9% in approximal surfaces, and from 1.7 to 5.2% in occlusal surfaces. The intra–examiner reliability data for the clinical and radiographic recordings supported the conclusion of an additional diagnostic value of bite–wings only for approximal surfaces. The findings demonstrate that the diagnostic yield of bite–wing radiography is higher for approximal than for occlusal surfaces. The efficacy of bite–wings depends on the refinement of the clinical caries diagnostic criteria. ‘Hidden’ caries does not seem to be a major problem when the clinical caries diagnostic criteria include non–cavitated diagnoses.

Keywords:
Bite–wing radiographs, Caries diagnosis, Children, Non–cavitated caries
This content is only available via PDF.
1999
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.