The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2012 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Dimensional Accuracy and Details of the Panoramic Cross-sectional Tomographic Images: An in vitro Study

M Ashwini Kumar, Bharat Mody, Gopa Kumar R Nair, LR Surender, S Sujatha Gopal, Ravi Varma KA Prasad

Citation Information : Kumar MA, Mody B, Nair GK, Surender L, Gopal SS, Prasad RV. Dimensional Accuracy and Details of the Panoramic Cross-sectional Tomographic Images: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (1):85-97.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1101

Published Online: 01-02-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

Transversal slicing system (TSS) of Planmeca PM 2002 CC is a tomographic technique which enables us to take cross-sectional views of jaws. Tomographic imaging modalities are commonly applied to acquire cross-sectional images of the jaws for preimplant assessment of bone. Among the available tomographic imaging modalities, panoramic radiography is the most accessible imaging system.

Materials and methods

Study was conducted using 25 mandibles, out of these five were used for linear dimensional accuracy measurement and the rest 20 were utilized to study the details within the mandible. Study was aimed to evaluate dimensional stability in the images using different parameters, such as determination of direction of slice, determination of horizontal and vertical magnification, angular distortion, threedimensional distortion and determination of details.

Results

For the direction of slice and for determination of horizontal and vertical magnification change in + 5° to – 5° was in acceptable limit. In determination of details, it was found that there was great discrepancy in readings given by nonradiologist which offset the mean value which was attributed to lack of training for interpretation of the observers.

Conclusion

99% of the readings were in the clinically acceptable limits.

Clinical significance

The easy availability, use of routine equipment, the low cost, low radiation dose for cross-sectional radiography make the TSS most preferred modality.

How to cite this article

Kumar MA, Mody B, Nair GKR, Surender LR, Gopal SS, Prasad RVKA. Dimensional Accuracy and Details of the Panoramic Cross-sectional Tomographic Images: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(1):85-97.


PDF Share
  1. Interpretation of linear and computed tomograms in the assessment of implant recipent sites. J Periodontal 1993;64:1243-49.
  2. Quality of peri implant low-dose tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Ended 1999;88:738-44.
  3. Implant site assessment using panoramic crosssectional tomographic imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endol 1997;84:436-42.
  4. Linear tomography's clinical accuracy and validity for presurgical dental implant analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997;84:203-09.
  5. Imaging techniques and image interpretation for dental implant treatment. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:442-52.
  6. Cross-sectional tomography. A diagnostic technique for determining the buccolingual relationship of impacted mandibular third molars and inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70:791-97.
  7. Implant radiology, Dent Clin North Am 1993;37(4):645-67.
  8. Selection criteria and dental implant site imaging. A position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endol 2000;89:630-37.
  9. The use of tomography for dental implant planning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997:26:206-13.
  10. Optimum placement of osseointegrated implants. JPD 1994;59:467-73.
  11. Comparison of twodimensional orthoradially reformatted computed tomography and panoramic radiography for dental implant treatment planning. JPD 1995;74:42-46.
  12. A stent for presurgical evaluation of implant placement. JPD 1997;77:36-38.
  13. New radiographic programs for transverse conventional tomograms in dentomaxillofacial region. Quintessence Int 1999;30:541-49.
  14. Conventional cross-sectional tomographic evaluation of mandibular third molars. Quintessence Int 2000;31:49-56.
  15. The accuracy of dental radiographic techniques used for evaluation of implant fixture placement. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1995;15:268-83.
  16. Oral radiology, principles and interpretation (3rd ed). Mosby Year Book Inc USA 1994;P169-171, 271.
  17. Low field magnetic resonance imaging for implant dentistry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998;27:225-29.
  18. Reliability of hypocycloidal tomography for the evaluation of distance from the alveolar crest to the mandibular canal. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991;19:200-04.
  19. Fabrication of a guide for nonradiographic evaluation of bone contour JPD 1997;77:621-23.
  20. Fabrication of a guide for radiographic evaluation and surgical placement for implants. JPD 1995;73:548-52.
  21. Conventional linear tomography: Protocol for assessing endosseous implant sites. JPD 1995;73:153-57.
  22. Using lead foil as a radiopaque marker for computerized tomography imaging when implant treatment planning. JPD 1997;80:224-25.
  23. Cross-sectional radiography for implant site assessment, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70:674-78.
  24. Absorbed dose determination for tomographic implant site assessment techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;73:52-59.
  25. Effects of tomographic motion, slice thickness and object thickness on film dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;81:368-73.
  26. Effect of axial plane deviation on cross-sectional height in reformatted computed tomography of the mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997;26:189-91.
  27. Panoramic radiology (2nd ed). Lea and Febriger 1989 (P-4, 8, 11, 38, 40-44).
  28. CT scans as a radiologic database for optimum implant orientation. JPD 1993;69:381-85.
  29. A diagnostic stent for endosseous implants to improve conventional tomographic radiographs. JPD 1994;71:482-85.
  30. Patient selection and preperation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T (Eds). Tissue integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence 1985;199-209.
  31. Cross-sectional presurgical implant imaging using tuned apperture computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:232-37.
  32. Receiver operating characteristics of radiovisiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radial Endol 1995;79:23S-45.
  33. Planning interactive implant treatment with 3D computed tomography JADA Nov 1991;122:40-44.
  34. The accuracy of dental radiographic techniques used for evaluation of implant fixture placement. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1995;15:268-83.
  35. Three approaches to regression analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves for continuous test results. Biometrics March 1998;54:124-35.
  36. Optimum placement of osseointegrated implants. JPD 59;467-73.
  37. Implant radiology. Dent din North Am 1993;45(37):645-68.
  38. Nonparametric analysis of clustered ROC curve data. Biometrics June 1997;53:567-78.
  39. Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radial Endol 1995;80:540-54.
  40. Clinically-based implant selection, Implant dentistry 1999813-19. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radial Endol 77:406-11.
  41. 6-bit and 8-bit digital radiography for detecting simulated periodontal lesions 1994.
  42. Presurgical radiographic assessment for implants. JPD 1989;61:59-64.
  43. Legal risks associated with implant dentistry. In: Hardin JF (Ed). Clark's clinical dentistry. Philadelphia JB Lippincott 1992(5).
  44. Comparison of film, direct digital and tuned aperture computed tomography images to identify the location of crest defects around endosseous titanium implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral radiol Endod 1996;81:480-90.
  45. Curtin cephalometric tomographic technique to visualize the buccolingual and vertical dimensions of the mandible. JPD 1987;58:466-70.
  46. Bone height measurement on panoramic radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997;84:340-45.
  47. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography (CT scan) in the planning of implant surgery. Journal of Indian Dental Association April 2000;71(4):92-96.
  48. Frequency domain analysis of cross-sectional images of the posterior mandible. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1997;11:290-95.
  49. Dental radiology, cross-sectional imaging of the edentulous mandible in dental implantology. 1994;(1, 2, 6-11, 30-32, 60-62).
  50. Radiographic procedures. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Alberktsson T (Eds). Tissue integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago. Quintessence 1985:317-27.
  51. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991;20:40-42.
  52. CAD-CAM multiplanar diagnostic imaging for subperiosteal implants. Dental Clinics of North America Jan 1986;30(l):85-95.
  53. Interpretation of linear and computed tomograms in the assessment of recipient sites. J Periodontol 1993;64:1243-49.
  54. Preimplant surgery of the bony tissues. JPD 1998;80:175-83.
  55. Tuned aperture computed tomography. Theory and application for threedimensional dentoalveolar imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997;26:53-62.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.