Premium
Artefacts in oral incisional biopsies in general dental practice: a pathology audit
Author(s) -
Seoane J,
VarelaCentelles PI,
Ramírez JR,
CameselleTeijeiro J,
Romero MA
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
oral diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.953
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1601-0825
pISSN - 1354-523X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1354-523x.2003.00983.x
Subject(s) - medicine , concordance , pathological , medical diagnosis , incisional biopsy , biopsy , oral and maxillofacial pathology , crush syndrome , surgery , radiology , pathology , dentistry
Objectives: To investigate the artefacts in oral biopsies taken by general dental practitioners (GDP) and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (O&MF) and to assess the concordance of clinical and pathological diagnoses. Design: Cross‐sectional investigation. Setting: Primary care and hospital practice. Material and methods: A total of 354 randomly selected oral biopsy samples studied by the same pathologist. Main outcome measures: Clinical and pathological diagnoses – prevalence and location of surgical handling artefacts: crush, splits, haemorrhage and fragmentation. Results: Artefacts identified in GDPs biopsies: crush 27.1%; haemorrhage 19.8%; splits 11.3%; and fragmentation 6.2%. O&MSs biopsies showed: crush 10.2%; splits 13%; fragmentation 2.3%; and haemorrhage 8.5%. No differences in split or fragmentation were identified between GDPs and O&MSs. Crush (χ 2 = 16.76; P = 0.000) and haemorrhage (χ 2 = 9.31; P = 0.003) were more frequently identified in GDPs biopsies. Concordance between clinical and pathological diagnoses was excellent ( > 0.75) for both groups in all disorders considered. Conclusions: The elicited clinical knowledge, the quality of the samples sent to the pathologists seem to suggest the advisability for the GDPs to perform diagnostic biopsies.