# Structured reporting of dental panoramic images in a hospital-based radiology setting: a comparative study

**Authors:** Moritz Ludwig Schnitzer, Gloria Biechele, Emilia Schober, Felix L. Herr, Christian Dascalescu, Maurice Heimer, Ricarda Ebner, Victoria Fusch, Sebastian Marschner, Stefanie Corradini, Florian Georg Ortner, Matthias Frank Frölich, Fabian Baier, Tobias Graf, Johannes Rübenthaler, Thomas Geyer

PMC · DOI: 10.3389/fdmed.2026.1769864 · 2026-03-05

## TL;DR

Structured reports for dental X-rays improve clarity, completeness, and clinical decision-making compared to traditional free-text reports.

## Contribution

This study demonstrates the clinical and communicative benefits of structured reporting in dental panoramic imaging.

## Key findings

- Structured reports (SRs) answered clinical questions in 100% of cases versus 42% for narrative reports (NRs).
- SRs enabled clinical decision-making in 100% of cases versus 29% for NRs.
- Evaluators showed greater trust in SRs with a significantly higher Likert score.

## Abstract

Despite radiological advancements, free-text reporting remains common. Structured reporting (SR) improves completeness, clarity, communication, efficiency, and information extraction while benefiting education and research. Its success depends on well-designed, modality-specific templates.

This study aimed to compare SRs and narrative reports (NRs) for dental panoramic images in a hospital-based radiology department with respect to completeness, clarity, ease of information extraction, and clinical utility.Fifty dental panoramic images were randomly selected from the clinical archive of a tertiary-care hospital radiology department. NRs by radiologists were compared with SRs retrospectively created by a board-certified dentist using a decision-tree template (Smart Radiology platform). A questionnaire, developed with two additional dentists, assessed completeness, clarity, ease of information extraction, and clinical utility.

SRs outperformed NRs in all areas. Clinical questions were answered in 100% of SRs vs. 42% of NRs (p < 0.05). SRs enabled clinical decision-making in 100% of cases vs. 29% for NRs (p < 0.05). Key features were omitted in 3% of SRs but in 96% of NRs (p < 0.05). Information extraction was rated “easy/fast” in 100% of SRs vs. 52% of NRs (p < 0.05). Evaluators showed greater trust in SRs (Likert score: 5.97 vs. 4.27, p < 0.05).

SR significantly enhances report quality, clinical decision-making, and communication in dental panoramic imaging.

## Figures

3 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12999565/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12999565