World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Diagnostic Reliability of Digital and Manual Panoramic Imaging in Presurgical Implant Length Evaluation in Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions at Different Sites

Fathima Banu Raza, Mahalakshmi Arumugam, Anand Kumar Vaidyanathan, Padmanabhan T Veeravalli

Keywords : Digital radiograph, Magnification factor, Manual radiograph

Citation Information : Raza FB, Arumugam M, Vaidyanathan AK, Veeravalli PT. Diagnostic Reliability of Digital and Manual Panoramic Imaging in Presurgical Implant Length Evaluation in Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions at Different Sites. World J Dent 2020; 11 (2):112-115.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1708

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 18-07-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: The reliability of panoramic radiograph (OPG) in treatment planning for dental implant placement is questionable. To assess the reproducibility and accuracy of panoramic imaging by evaluating the vertical and horizontal magnification factor (MF) at different regions of maxilla and mandible in manual and digital OPG. Materials and methods: The MF of the OPG at incisor, premolar, and molar regions taken through manual and digital radiograph unit with Asahi unit (MF 1.2–1.3×) and Planmeca unit (MF 1.2×), respectively, was assessed both horizontally and vertically. The measurement was made using Vernier caliper for manual and Microdicom Otic software for digital OPG. Measurements were done using two observers. Results: Mean vertical MF determined using digital OPG was found to be constant and similar to manufacturer's MF in molar and premolar regions; but in the incisor region, it was less than manufacturer's MF value, while manual OPG showed significant difference in vertical MF (t test). Mean horizontal MF of digital OPG was lower than the manufacturer's listed factor; while in manual OPG, it was within the manufacturer's specification in molar and premolar regions but the range was wide. Conclusion: The present study shows vertical MF was constant with digital OPG, while horizontal MF was similar to manufacturer's specification in manual OPG, especially in molar and premolar regions. Clinical significance: Magnification of image is normal occurrence in any radiographic image. In panoramic image where the focal spot–film distance is specific, the manufacturer's MF could be used appropriately to minimize errors.

  1. Andersson B, Odman P, Lindvall AM, et al. Five-year prospective study of prosthodontic and surgical single-tooth implant treatment in general practices and at a specialist clinic. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11(4):351–355.
  2. Engelman MJ, Sorensen JA, Moy P. Optimum placement of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59(4):467–473. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90044-3.
  3. Stella JP, Tharanon W. A precise radiographic method to determine the location of the inferior alveolar canal in the posterior edentulous mandible: implications for dental implants. Part I: technique Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5(1):15–22.
  4. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, et al. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10(6):387–416. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4.
  5. Lekholm U. The brånemark implant technique: a standardized surgical procedure under continuous development. In: Laney WR, Tolman DE. Tissue Integration in Oral, Orthopedic and Maxillofacial Reconstruction. Chicago: Quintessence; 1992. pp. 194–199.
  6. Beason RC, Brooks SL. Preoperative implant site assessment in southeast Michigan. J Dent Res 2001;80:137.
  7. Strid KG. Radiographic results. In: Branemark PI, Zarb G, Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. pp. 187–198.
  8. Sakakura CE, Morais JA, Loffredo LCM, et al. A survey of radiographic prescription in dental implant assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32(6):397–400. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/20681066.
  9. Dalla Palma L, Grisi G, Cuttin R, et al. Digital vs conventional radiography: cost and revenue analysis. Eur Radiol 1999;9(8): 1682–1692. DOI: 10.1007/s003300050910.
  10. Frederiksen NL. Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;80(5):540–554. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(05)80153-2.
  11. Catić A, Celebić A, Valentić-Peruzović M, et al. Evaluation of the precision of dimensional measurements of the mandible on panoramic radiograph. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontology 1998;86(2):242–248. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(98)90132-9.
  12. Blum IR, Smith GA. A quick and simple method to obtain a radiographic evaluation of remaining alveolar bone height before implant placement. Aust Dent J 2002;47(3):266–268. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00341.x.
  13. Batenburg RH, Stellingsma K, Raghoebar GM, et al. 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(4):430–435. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(97)90044-5.
  14. Reddy MS, Mayfield DT, Vanderven FJ, et al. A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of panoramic radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5(4):229–238. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050406.x.
  15. Bailoor DN, Nagesh KS. Fundamentals of oral medicine and radiology. 1st ed., New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd; 2005. p. 319.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.