Structured reporting enhances diagnostic quality in periapical dental radiographs: a comparative evaluation

Background: Radiological reports are critical for accurate diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making. While narrative free-text reports remain the conventional standard in dental radiology, structured reporting has emerged as a promising approach to enhance report quality, consistency, and clinical relevance. This study aims to assess whether structured reporting provides measurable advantages over traditional narrative reports in the interpretation of dental radiographs. Materials and methods: A total of 50 randomly selected narrative reports of intraoral dental radiographs were retrospectively analyzed. Using a standardized template, corresponding structured reports were created for each case. Two independent dentists evaluated the reports using a detailed questionnaire, comparing both formats across nine parameters: therapeutic decision-making, completeness, information extraction, level of detail, logical sequence, trustworthiness, linguistic quality, clarity, and overall assessment. Results: < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between structured and narrative reports regarding therapeutic decision-making or the sufficiency of information for treatment planning. Conclusion: Structured reporting in dental radiology demonstrates clear benefits in report clarity, quality, and interpretive utility. Although its impact on clinical decision-making may be equivalent to narrative reports, its consistent structure offers valuable advantages for communication, documentation, and future integration with clinical decision support systems.