Abstract
Objectives:
Panoramic
radiography (PR) is the most commonly used technique to evaluate the dental and
associated structures. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of
panoramic radiographs (PRDs) in planning of dental implant treatment and the
magnification rate of a panoramic device for anterior, premolar and posterior
regions.
Materials and Methods: Eighty-eight patients, who received PRD after implant surgery, were
included to the study. A total of 240 dental implants (53 anterior, 69
premolar, and 118 molar regions) of which previously vertical lengths were
known, were re-measured on post-operative radiographic images using the scaling
tools of the panoramic system to determine the magnification rate and the
accuracy of PRDs. Cause the data had
normal distribution, the paired t test was used for the statistical analysis
(p<0.05). The magnification rate of the three regions was calculated as the
rate of measured vertical length of the implants to the actual vertical length
of the implants.
Results: Statistically
significant difference was found between the actual and measured vertical
length of the implants on the PRD (p<0.05). However, the correlation rate
was found close to 1 for all regions.
The difference between the actual and measured vertical length of the
implants on the PRD was 0.50 mm for the anterior region, 0.97 mm for the
premolar region, and 0.83 mm for the molar region. The magnification rate of
the panoramic system corrected by CliniviewTM (Instrumentarium
Corp., Tuusula, FINLAND) software was found around 1 for all the regions.
Conclusions: Due to their readily accessible nature and low radiation dose, PRDs can
be used in implant surgery for vertical measurements with 1 mm confidence
interval.
Keywords
Dental implant Panoramic radiography Radiographic examination Radiographic magnification Vertical measurement
References
- 1. Kim YK, Park JY, Kim SG, Kim JS, Kim JD. Magnification rate of digital panoramic radiographs and its effectiveness for pre-operative assessment of dental implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40(2):76-83.
- 2. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Calibration of radiographs by a reference metal ball affects preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13(4):375-381.
- 3. Mehra A, Pai KM. Evaluation of dimensional accuracy of panoramic cross-sectional tomography, its ability to identify the inferior alveolar canal, and its impact on estimation of appropriate implant dimensions in the mandibular posterior region. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:100-111.
- 4. Rockenbach MI, Sampaio MC, Costa LJ, Costa NP. Evaluation of mandibular implant sites: correlation between panoramic and linear tomography. Braz Dent J 2003;14(3):209-213.
- 5. Haghnegahdar A, Bronoosh P. Accuracy of linear vertical measurements in posterior mandible on panoramic view. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2013;10(2):220-224.
- 6. Park JB. The evaluation of digital panoramic radiographs taken for implant dentistry in the daily practice. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15(4):663-666.
- 7. Sakakura CE, Morais JA, Loffredo LC, Scaf G. A survey of radiographic prescription in dental implant assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32(6):397-400.
- 8. Yim JH, Ryu DM, Lee BS, Kwon YD. Analysis of digitalized panorama and cone beam computed tomographic image distortion for the diagnosis of dental implant surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22(2):669-673.
- 9. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross‐sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(4):424-429.
- 10. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Visualisation of the mandibular canal by different radiographic techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3(2):90-97.
- 11. Sonick M. A comparison of the accuracy of periapical, panoramic, and computerized tomographic radiographs in locating the mandibular canal. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:455-460.
- 12. Kitai N, Mukai Y, Murabayashi M, Kawabata A, Washino K, Matsuoka M, Shimizu I, Katsumata A. Measurement accuracy with a new dental panoramic radiographic technique based on tomosynthesis. Angle Orthod 2013;83(1):117-126.
- 13. Nikneshan S, Sharafi M, Emadi N. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs taken at different positions. Imaging Sci Dent 2013;43(3):191-196.
- 14. Vazquez L, Nizam Al Din Y, Christoph Belser U, Combescure C, Bernard JP. Reliability of the vertical magnification factor on panoramic radiographs: clinical implications for posterior mandibular implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(12):1420-1425.
- 15. Vazquez L, Nizamaldin Y, Combescure C, Nedir R, Bischof M, Dohan Ehrenfest DM, Carrel JP, Belser UC. Accuracy of vertical height measurements on direct digital panoramic radiographs using posterior mandibular implants and metal balls as reference objects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42(2):20110429.
- 16. Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991;20(1):40-42.
- 17. Volohansky A, Cleaton-Jones P, Drummond S, Bönecker M. Technique for linear measurement on panoramic and periapical radiographs: a pilot study. Quintessence Int 2006;37(3):191-197.
- 18. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15(4):490-497.
- 19. Stramotas S, Geenty JP, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Accuracy of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs taken at various positions in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2002;24(1):43-52.
- 20. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(2):35-51.
- 21. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Carinci F. Do longer implants improve clinical outcome in immediate loading? Int J Oral and Maxillofac Surg 2007;36(12):1172-1176.
- 22. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(1):81-85.
- 23. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;92(4):458-463.
- 24. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6(2):96-103.
- 25. Yassaei S, Ezoddini-Ardakani F, Ostovar N. Predicting the actual length of premolar teeth on the basis of panoramic radiology. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21(4):468-473.
Abstract
References
- 1. Kim YK, Park JY, Kim SG, Kim JS, Kim JD. Magnification rate of digital panoramic radiographs and its effectiveness for pre-operative assessment of dental implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40(2):76-83.
- 2. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Calibration of radiographs by a reference metal ball affects preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13(4):375-381.
- 3. Mehra A, Pai KM. Evaluation of dimensional accuracy of panoramic cross-sectional tomography, its ability to identify the inferior alveolar canal, and its impact on estimation of appropriate implant dimensions in the mandibular posterior region. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:100-111.
- 4. Rockenbach MI, Sampaio MC, Costa LJ, Costa NP. Evaluation of mandibular implant sites: correlation between panoramic and linear tomography. Braz Dent J 2003;14(3):209-213.
- 5. Haghnegahdar A, Bronoosh P. Accuracy of linear vertical measurements in posterior mandible on panoramic view. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2013;10(2):220-224.
- 6. Park JB. The evaluation of digital panoramic radiographs taken for implant dentistry in the daily practice. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15(4):663-666.
- 7. Sakakura CE, Morais JA, Loffredo LC, Scaf G. A survey of radiographic prescription in dental implant assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32(6):397-400.
- 8. Yim JH, Ryu DM, Lee BS, Kwon YD. Analysis of digitalized panorama and cone beam computed tomographic image distortion for the diagnosis of dental implant surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22(2):669-673.
- 9. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross‐sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(4):424-429.
- 10. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Visualisation of the mandibular canal by different radiographic techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3(2):90-97.
- 11. Sonick M. A comparison of the accuracy of periapical, panoramic, and computerized tomographic radiographs in locating the mandibular canal. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:455-460.
- 12. Kitai N, Mukai Y, Murabayashi M, Kawabata A, Washino K, Matsuoka M, Shimizu I, Katsumata A. Measurement accuracy with a new dental panoramic radiographic technique based on tomosynthesis. Angle Orthod 2013;83(1):117-126.
- 13. Nikneshan S, Sharafi M, Emadi N. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs taken at different positions. Imaging Sci Dent 2013;43(3):191-196.
- 14. Vazquez L, Nizam Al Din Y, Christoph Belser U, Combescure C, Bernard JP. Reliability of the vertical magnification factor on panoramic radiographs: clinical implications for posterior mandibular implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(12):1420-1425.
- 15. Vazquez L, Nizamaldin Y, Combescure C, Nedir R, Bischof M, Dohan Ehrenfest DM, Carrel JP, Belser UC. Accuracy of vertical height measurements on direct digital panoramic radiographs using posterior mandibular implants and metal balls as reference objects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42(2):20110429.
- 16. Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991;20(1):40-42.
- 17. Volohansky A, Cleaton-Jones P, Drummond S, Bönecker M. Technique for linear measurement on panoramic and periapical radiographs: a pilot study. Quintessence Int 2006;37(3):191-197.
- 18. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15(4):490-497.
- 19. Stramotas S, Geenty JP, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Accuracy of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs taken at various positions in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2002;24(1):43-52.
- 20. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(2):35-51.
- 21. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Carinci F. Do longer implants improve clinical outcome in immediate loading? Int J Oral and Maxillofac Surg 2007;36(12):1172-1176.
- 22. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(1):81-85.
- 23. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;92(4):458-463.
- 24. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6(2):96-103.
- 25. Yassaei S, Ezoddini-Ardakani F, Ostovar N. Predicting the actual length of premolar teeth on the basis of panoramic radiology. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21(4):468-473.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Original Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | October 17, 2018 |
| Submission Date | May 17, 2018 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2018 |
Cited By
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.
CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.
Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.
Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.