A comparison of peripheral marginal bone loss at dental implants measured with conventional intraoral film and digitized radiographs

Journal of Oral Implantology

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 211-219

  Kamburoĝlu, Kivanç ^a   Gülsxahi, Aysxe ^b   Genç, Yasemin ^a   Paksoy, Candan Semra ^a  

^a ANKARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b Basxkent University   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Condensing technique; Digitized radiography; Film radiography; Marginal bone measurement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALVEOLAR BONE LOSS; ARTICLE; BONE DENSITY; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; MALE; MAXILLA; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PHOTON ABSORPTIOMETRY; PHYSIOLOGY; PREMOLAR TOOTH; RADIOGRAPHY; TOOTH IMPLANTATION; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

ABSORPTIOMETRY, PHOTON; ADULT; ALVEOLAR BONE LOSS; BICUSPID; BONE DENSITY; DENTAL IMPLANTATION, ENDOSSEOUS; DENTAL IMPLANTS, SINGLE-TOOTH; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MAXILLA; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; X-RAY FILM; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84864205880     PISSN: 01606972     EISSN: 15481336     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-09-00147     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Jones AA, Cochran DL. Consequences of implant design. Dent Clin North Am. 2006;50:339-360. (Pubitemid 43962933)
2. Mombelli A, Lang NP. Clinical parameters for the evaluation of dental implants. Periodontol. 2000; 1994;4:81-86.
3. Misch CE. The implant quality scale: A clinical assessment of the health-disease continuum. Oral Health. 1998;88:15-20.
4. Winkler S, Morris HF, Spray JR. Stability of implants and natural teeth as determined by the Periotest over 60 months of function. J Oral Implantol. 2001;27:198-203.
5. King GN, Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: A radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 2002;73:1111-1117. (Pubitemid 35256261)
6. Chung WE, Rubenstein JE, Phillips KM, Raigrodski AJ. Outcomes assessment of patients treated with osseointegrated dental implants at the university of Washington graduate prosthodontic program, 1998 to 2000. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:927-935.
7. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:567-572.
8. Meijer HJA, Steen WHA, Bosman F. A comparison of methods to assess marginal bone height around endosseous implants. J Clin Periodontol. 1993;20:250-253.
9. Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: The osteotome technique. Compendium. 1994;15:152-162.
10. Summers RB. The osteotome technique: Part 2-The ridge expansion osteotomy (REO) procedure. Compendium. 1994;15:432-436.
11. Gulsahi A, Paksoy CS, Yazicioglu N, et al. Assessment of bone density differences between conventional and bone-condensing techniques using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104: 692-698.
12. Grassl U, Schulze RKW. In vitro perception of low-contrast features in digital, film, and digitized dental radiographs: A receiver operating characteristic analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;103:694-701.
13. Parissis N, Sidira Kondylidou A, Tsirlis A, et al. Conventional radiographs vs digitized radiographs: Image quality assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34:353-356. (Pubitemid 41608133)
14. Janhom A, van Ginkel FC, van Amerongen JP, et al. Scanning resolution and the detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001;30: 166-171. (Pubitemid 33695406)
15. Ohki M, Okano T, Nakamura T. Factors determining the diagnostic accuracy of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1994;23:77-82.
16. Chen SK, Hollender L. Digitizing of radiographs with a flatbed scanner. J Dent. 1995;23:205-208.
17. Goga R, Chandler NP, Love RM. Clarity and diagnostic quality of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:103-107.
18. Shrout MK, Potter BJ, Yurgalavage HM, et al. 35-mm film scanner as an intraoral dental radiograph digitizer II: Effects of brightness and contrast adjustments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1993;76:510-518. (Pubitemid 23318937)
19. Bittar-Cortez JA, Passeri LA, de Almeida SM, et al. Comparison of peri-implant bone level assessment in digitized conventional radiographs and digital subtraction images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35: 258-262. (Pubitemid 44076883)
20. Gröndahl K, Sunden S, Gröndahl HG. Inter-And intraobserver variability in radiographic bone level assessment at Branemark fixtures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998;9:243-250.
21. Pecoraro ML, Azadivatan-le N, Janal M, et al. Comparison of observer reliability in assessing alveolar bone height on direct digital and conventional radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34:279-284. (Pubitemid 41329356)
22. Li G, Engström PE, Nasström K, et al. Marginal bone levels measured in film and digital radiographs corrected for attenuation and visual response: An in vivo study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:7-11. (Pubitemid 46490722)
23. Jaffin RA, Kolesar M, Kumar A, et al. The radiographic bone loss pattern adjacent to immediately placed, immediately loaded implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:187-194.
24. Kupershmidt I, Levin L, Schwartz-Arad D. Interimplant bone height changes in anterior maxillary immediate and non-immediate adjacent dental implants. J Periodontol. 2007;78:991-996.
25. Finne K, Rompen E, Toljanic J. Clinical evaluation of a prospective multicenter study on 1-piece implants. Part 1: Marginal bone level evaluation after 1 year of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22:226-234.
26. Mörner-Svalling AC, Tronje G, Andersson LG, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic potential of direct digital and conventional intraoral radiography in the evaluation of peri-implant conditions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14:714-719. (Pubitemid 37524142)
27. Mengel R, Kruse B, Flores-de-Jacoby L. Digital volume tomography in the diagnosis of peri-implant defects: An in vitro study on native pig mandibles. J Periodontol. 2006;77:1234-1241. (Pubitemid 44725032)