Objetivo O presente estudo avaliou a confiabilidade da radiografia panorâmica digital no diagnóstico de calcificações na artéria carótida. Materiais e Métodos Trinta e cinco pacientes de alto risco para o desenvolvimento de calcificações na artéria carótida que tinham a radiografia panorâmica digital foram encaminhados para realização do exame de ultrassonografia. Assim, 70 artérias foram avaliadas pelos dois exames. Os principais parâmetros utilizados para avaliar a confiabilidade da radiografia panorâmica no diagnóstico de calcificações na artéria carótida foram a precisão, a sensibilidade, a especificidade e o valor preditivo positivo desse método quando comparado à ultrassonografia. Além disso, o teste de McNemar foi utilizado para verificar se existia diferença estatisticamente significante entre a radiografia panorâmica digital e ultrassonografia. Resultados De acordo com a ultrassonografia, 17 (48,57%) pacientes apresentavam calcificações na artéria carótida. Esses indivíduos apresentavam um total de 29 (41,43%) artérias carótidas atingidas por calcificações. O exame radiográfico foi preciso em acertar 71,43% (n = 50) dos casos avaliados. O grau de sensibilidade desse método foi 37,93%, especificidade de 95,12% e valor preditivo positivo de 84,61%. Além disso, foi verificada diferença estatisticamente significante (p < 0,001) entre os exames avaliados na capacidade de diagnosticar calcificações na artéria carótida. Conclusão A radiografia panorâmica digital não deve ser indicada como exame de excelência para investigação da presença de calcificações na artéria carótida.

Objective The present study evaluated the reliability of digital panoramic radiography in the diagnosis of carotid artery calcifications. Materials and Methods Thirty-five patients under high-risk for development of carotid artery calcifications who had digital panoramic radiography were referred to undergo ultrasonography. Thus, 70 arteries were assessed by both methods. The main parameters utilized to evaluate the panoramic radiography reliability in the diagnosis of carotid artery calcifications were accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of this method as compared with ultrasonography. Additionally, the McNemar's test was utilized to verify whether there was a statistically significant difference between digital panoramic radiography and ultrasonography. Results Ultrasonography demonstrated carotid artery calcifications in 17 (48.57%) patients. Such individuals presented with a total of 29 (41.43%) carotid arteries affected by calcification. Radiography was accurate in 71.43% (n = 50) of cases evaluated. The degree of sensitivity of this method was 37.93%, specificity of 95.12% and positive predictive value of 84.61%. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed between the methods evaluated in their capacity to diagnose carotid artery calcifications. Conclusion Digital panoramic radiography should not be indicated as a method of choice in the investigation of carotid artery calcifications.

There are many studies that compare the accuracy of multislice (MSCT) and cone beam (CBCT) computed tomography for evaluations in the maxillofacial region. However, further studies comparing both acquisition techniques for the evaluation of simulated mandibular bone lesions are needed. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of MSCT and CBCT in the diagnosis of simulated mandibular bone lesions by means of cross sectional images and axial/MPR slices. Lesions with different dimensions, shape and locularity were produced in 15 dry mandibles. The images were obtained following the cross sectional and axial/MPR (Multiplanar Reconstruction) imaging protocols and were interpreted independently. CBCT and MSCT showed similar results in depicting the percentage of cortical bone involvement, with great sensitivity and specificity (p < 0.005). There were no significant intra- or inter-examiner differences between axial/MPR images and cross sectional images with regard to sensitivity and specificity. CBCT showed results similar to those of MSCT for the identification of the number of simulated bone lesions. Cross sectional slices and axial/MPR images presented high accuracy, proving useful for bone lesion diagnosis.