Accuracy of vertical height measurements on direct digital panoramic radiographs using posterior mandibular implants and metal balls as reference objects

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2013, Pages

  Vazquez, L ^a   Nizamaldin, Y ^a   Combescure, C ^b   Nedir, R ^c   Bischof, M ^c   Dohan Ehrenfest, D M ^a   Carrel, J P ^a   Belser, U C ^d  

^a University Clinics of Dental Medicine Division of Gerodontology and Removable Prosthodontics   (Switzerland)

^b GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

^c Ardentis Clinique Dentaire   (Switzerland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Dental implant; Digital dental radiography; Panoramic radiography; Radiographic magnification

Indexed keywords

ALLOY; CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; EDENTULOUSNESS; FEMALE; FIDUCIAL MARKER; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MALE; MANDIBLE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PANORAMIC RADIOGRAPHY; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; TOOTH ARCH; TOOTH IMPLANT; TOOTH PROSTHESIS; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALLOYS; CEPHALOMETRY; CONTRAST MEDIA; DENTAL ARCH; DENTAL IMPLANTS; DENTAL PROSTHESIS DESIGN; FEMALE; FIDUCIAL MARKERS; HUMANS; JAW, EDENTULOUS, PARTIALLY; MALE; MANDIBLE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; RADIOGRAPHY, PANORAMIC; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84875171895     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20110429     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Dula K, Mini R, van der Stelt PF, Buser D. The radiographic assessment of implant patients: decision-making criteria. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16: 80-89.
2. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R, et al. EAO Guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 566-570.
3. 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: 490-497.
4. 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: 81-85.
5. Vazquez L, Nizam Al Din Y, Belser UC, Combescure C, Bernard JP. Reliability of the vertical magnification factor on panoramic radiographs: clinical implications for posterior mandibular implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 2011; 22: 1420-1425.
6. Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 20: 40-42.
7. Tronje G, Welander U, McDavid WD, Morris CR. Image distortion in rotational panoramic radiography. I. General considerations. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1981; 22: 295-299.
8. Tronje G, Eliasson S, Julin P, Welander U. Image distortion in rotational panoramic radiography. II. Vertical distances. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1981; 22: 449-455.
9. McDavid WD, Dove SB, Welander U, Tronje G. Dimensional reproduction in direct digital rotational panoramic radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993; 75: 523-527.
10. Batenburg RH, Stellingsma K, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Bone height measurements on panoramic radiographs: the effect of shape and position of edentulous mandibles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997; 84: 430-435.
11. Scarfe WC, Eraso FE, Farman AG. Characteristics of the Orthopantomograph OP 100. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 51-57.
12. Gomez-Roman G, Lukas D, Beniashvili R, Schulte W. Areadependent enlargement ratios of panoramic tomography on orthograde patient positioning and its significance for implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 248-257.
13. 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: 43-52.
14. 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: 375-381.
15. Nedir R, Bischof M, Briaux JM, Beyer S, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bernard JP. A 7-year life table analysis from a prospective study on ITI implants with special emphasis on the use of short implants. Results from a private practice. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 150-157.
16. Schulze R, Krummenauer F, Schalldach F, d'Hoedt B. Precision and accuracy of measurements in digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 52-56.
17. Gotfredsen E, Schropp L, Wenzel A. Software used to predict implant size from digital panoramic radiographs. Int Congr Ser 2005; 1281-1414.
18. Park JB. The evaluation of digital panoramic radiographs taken for implant dentistry in daily practice. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010; 15: e663-666.
19. Kim YK, Park JY, Kim SG, Kim JS, Kim JD. Magnification rate of digital panoramic radiographs and its effectiveness for preoperative assessment of dental implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 76-83.
20. Schulze R, d'Hoedt B: Mathematical analysis of projection errors in "paralleling technique" with respect to implant geometry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 10: 364-371.
21. Buser D, von Arx T. Surgical procedures in partially edentulous patients with ITI implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 83-100.
22. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1237-1243.
23. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71: 461-468.
24. Bou Serhal C, Jacobs R, Persoons M, Hermans R, van Steenberghe D. The accuracy of spiral tomography to assess bone quantity for the preoperative planning of implants in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 242-247.
25. Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89: 630-637.
26. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 2006; 10: 1-7.
27. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Kaser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 367-378.
28. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of conebeam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 75-80.
29. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 291-294.
30. Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 228-231.
31. Marmulla R, Wortche R, Muhling J, Hassfeld S. Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 Cone Beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005; 34: 28-31.
32. Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, Marchal G, Jacobs R, Suetens P. Assessment of bone segmentation quality of cone-beam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102: 225-234.
33. Gerlach NL, Meijer GJ, Maal TJ, Mulder J, Rangel FA, Borstlap WA, et al. Reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods based on cone beam computed tomography in determining the anatomical position of the mandibular canal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 68: 811-817.
34. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6: 96-103.
35. Machtei EE, Zigdon H, Levin L, Peled M. Novel ultrasonic device to measure the distance from the bottom of the osteotome to various anatomic landmarks. J Periodontol 2011; 81: 1051-1055.