The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Accuracy of determining the Distance between Alveolar Crest and Cementoenamel Junction in Digital Radiography with Scanora and DentalEye Software Programs

Mojdeh Mehdizadeh, Negar Maarefat, Shervin Bagherieh

Citation Information : Mehdizadeh M, Maarefat N, Bagherieh S. Comparison of Accuracy of determining the Distance between Alveolar Crest and Cementoenamel Junction in Digital Radiography with Scanora and DentalEye Software Programs. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (10):815-819.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1936

Published Online: 01-10-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To compare the accuracy of determining the distance between alveolar crest and cementoenamel junction (CEJ) in digital radiography with two image processing software programs.

Materials and methods

In this in vitro study, 63 sites in a dried human mandible underwent digital periapical radiography. The distance from the alveolar crest to the CEJ was calculated using DentalEye and Scanora software programs and compared with the standard mode (measured on the skull). Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t-test using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 23 at α = 0.05.

Results

There were significant differences in the distances between CEJ and the alveolar crest at the mesial surfaces as measured by the three techniques in standard mode, using DentalEye and Scanora (p-value ≤0.03) softwares; however, there were no significant differences between the results on distal surfaces (p-value = 0.248).

Conclusion

Under the limitations of the present study, the measurements made to determine the distance from the CEJ to the alveolar crest with DentalEye and Scanora, relative to each other, and relative to the standard mode, were accurate only on distal surfaces of teeth.

Clinical significance

Digital dental software programs are useful assets that can enhance the diagnosing ability and reduce the need of taking extra images.

How to cite this article

Mehdizadeh M, Maarefat N, Bagherieh S. Comparison of Accuracy of determining the Distance between Alveolar Crest and Cementoenamel Junction in Digital Radiography with Scanora and DentalEye Software Programs. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(10):815-819.


PDF Share
  1. Carranza's clinical periodontology. 11th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2011.
  2. A comparison between conventional and digital radiography in estimating the working length of root canal. J Mashhad Dent School 2006 Spring-Summer;30(1-2):33-40.
  3. Endodontic records and legal responsibilities. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, editors. Pathways of the pulp. 8th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002. p. 400.
  4. Assessment of external root resorption using digital subtraction radiography. J Endod 1992 Jun;18(6):275-284.
  5. Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions: overall comparison between conventional and direct digital radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996 Sep;82(3):344-350.
  6. Paralleling technique. In: Haring JI, Iannucci JM, Howerton LJ, Jansen L, editors. Dental radiography: Principles and techniques. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2000. p. 211-248.
  7. The effects of incremental brightness and contrast adjustments on radiographic data: a quantitative study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005 Jan;34(1):20-27.
  8. Radiographic assessment of the marginal bone level after implant treatment: a comparison of periapical and Scanora detailed narrow beam radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003 Mar;32(2):97-103.
  9. Correction for attenuation and visual response in digital radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002 Mar;31(2):117-125.
  10. Comparison of direct digital and conventional intraoral radiographs in detecting alveolar bone loss. J Am Dent Assoc 2003 Nov;134(11):1468-1475.
  11. Comparative investigation of accuracy of measurements of CEJ-to-alveolar crest distance in periapical conventional and digital radiographs corrected for attenuation and visual response. J Isfahan Dent School 2011;6(6):623-627.
  12. Marginal bone levels measured in film and digital radiographs corrected for attenuation and visual response: an in vivo study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007 Jan;36(1):7-11.
  13. Intra-oral storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the assessment of alveolar bone structures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000 Nov;29(6):362-367.
  14. Digital radiography of interproximal bone loss: validity of different filters. J Clin Periodontol 1999 May;26(5):294-300.
  15. Three-dimensional alveolar bone morphology analysis using computed tomography. J Periodontol 1998 May;69(5):584-589.
  16. Measurement accuracy of marginal bone level in digital radiographs with and without color coding. Acta Odontol Scand 2007 Oct;65(5):254-258.
  17. Comparison of clinical, periapical radiograph, and cone-beam volume tomography measurement techniques for assessing bone level changes following regenerative periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 2009 Jan;80(1):48-55.
  18. Comparison of ultrasound, digital and conventional radiography in differentiating periapical lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006 Sep;35(5):326-333.
  19. Comparison of digital with conventional radiography in detection of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated maxillary premolars: an ex vivo study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008 Jul;106(1):124-128.
  20. Comparison of simulated periodontal bone defect depth measured in digital radiographs in dedicated and nondedicated software systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006 Nov;35(6):422-425.
  21. Detection of periodontal bone loss using digital intraoral and cone beam computed tomography images: an in vitro assessment of bony and/or infrabony defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008 Jul;37(5):252-260.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.