The effects of location of alveolar crest on the vertical bone heights on panoramic radiographs.

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to show that the horizontal relationship between the mandibular canal and the alveolar crest can influence the available bone height (ABH) measurement on panoramic radiographs. METHODS 92 mandibular edentulous sites of panoramic computed radiographs and reformatted CT images of 77 patients were used. Selected CT images were categorized into four types according to the relative location of the peak of the alveolar crest to the mandibular canal. One oral and maxillofacial radiologist measured the ABH twice on both imaging modalities with an interval of 7 days and compared the measurement differences according to the type. RESULTS The absolute average value of the differences in measurement between the values of ABHs on panoramic images and CT images was 0.97 mm. Significant difference was found only between the mean values of ABHs for Type 1 (0.60 mm), where the alveolar crest is located in the buccal side or central area with respect to the mandibular canal, and Type 4 (1.46 mm), where the alveolar crest is in the lingual side to the mandibular canal (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The relative horizontal location of the alveolar crest with respect to the mandibular canal affected the ABH measurement on panoramic radiographs. In particular, ABH is overestimated when there has been resorption of the buccal aspect of the ridge, moving the alveolar crest lingually.

[1]  R. Kraut,et al.  Outcomes of placing short dental implants in the posterior mandible: a retrospective study of 124 cases. , 2009, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[2]  J. Bernard,et al.  Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[3]  A. Garg Dental implant imaging: TeraRecon's Dental 3D Cone Beam Computed Tomography System. , 2007, Dental implantology update.

[4]  P. Campos,et al.  Computed tomography for dental implants: the influence of the gantry angle and mandibular positioning on the bone height and width. , 2005, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[5]  T. Griffin,et al.  The use of short, wide implants in posterior areas with reduced bone height: a retrospective investigation. , 2004, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  Seki Kenji,et al.  Radiologic measurements of the mandible: a comparison between CT-reformatted and conventional tomographic images. , 2004 .

[7]  T. Sano,et al.  Radiologic measurements of the mandible: a comparison between CT-reformatted and conventional tomographic images. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  K. Kim,et al.  Effect of mandibular positioning on preimplant site measurement of the mandible in reformatted CT. , 2003, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[9]  K. Kim,et al.  Radiologic assessment of alveolar and basal bone change of partially edentulous mandible , 2002 .

[10]  Cho Bong-Hae Bone height measurements of implant sites : Comparison of panoramic radiography and spiral computed tomography , 2002 .

[11]  D A Tyndall,et al.  Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. , 2000, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[12]  H. Worthington,et al.  Radiology: The quality of panoramic radiographs in a sample of general dental practices , 1999, British Dental Journal.

[13]  C. Clokie,et al.  Linear tomography's clinical accuracy and validity for presurgical dental implant analysis. , 1997, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[14]  D Kohavi,et al.  Effect of axial plane deviation on cross-sectional height in reformatted computed tomography of the mandible. , 1997, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[15]  E. Lam,et al.  Comparison of two-dimensional orthoradially reformatted computed tomography and panoramic radiography for dental implant treatment planning. , 1995, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  S. Elíasson,et al.  Panoramic and tomographic dimensional determinations for maxillary osseointegrated implants. Comparison of the morphologic information potential of two and three dimensional radiographic systems. , 1995, Swedish dental journal.

[17]  M. Jeffcoat,et al.  A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of panoramic radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental implants. , 1994, Clinical oral implants research.

[18]  H Tal,et al.  A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. , 1991, Dento maxillo facial radiology.