Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Vertical Magnification Ratio among Various Areas in Panoramic Radiographs

  • Song, Woong-Kyu (Department of Periodontology and Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Seok, Hwa-Suk (Department of Periodontology, Sahmyook Adventist Dental Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Byeong-Rin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sahmyook Adventist Dental Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology and Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2017.08.29
  • Accepted : 2017.12.13
  • Published : 2017.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of the present article is to determine whether there are differences in vertical enlargement ratio among various sites within both jaws in a panoramic radiograph. Materials and Methods: Two hundred and seventy-threeimplant sites in panoramic radiographs were evaluated by two observers. Magnification ratios at various sites in both jaws were calculated and compared with each other. Result: The average vertical enlargement ratio in the panoramic radiograph was 1.264 and this value was larger than original ratio 1.250. Although vertical magnification ratio of maxillary molar area was higher than that of mandibular molar area, every group showed similar magnification ratio in clinical respect. Conclusion: Vertical magnification ratio of the maxillary molar area is statistically higher than that of the mandibular molar area in the panoramic radiograph, but it is clinically negligible.

Keywords

References

  1. 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: 81-5.
  2. 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: 80-9.
  3. Allen F, Smith DG. An assessment of the accuracy of ridge-mapping in planning implant therapy for the anterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11: 34-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011001034.x
  4. Reddy MS, Mayfield-Donahoo T, Vanderven FJ, Jeffcoat MK. 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: 229-38. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050406.x
  5. BouSerhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Imaging technique selection for the preoperative planning of oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002; 4: 156-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00167.x
  6. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995; 6: 96-103. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060205.x
  7. Bolin A, Eliasson S, von Beetzen M, Jansson L. Radiographic evaluation of mandibular posterior implant sites: correlation between panoramic and tomographic determinations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7: 354-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070408.x
  8. Ogawa K, Langlais RP, McDavid WD, Noujeim M, Seki K, Okano T, Yamakawa T, Sue T. Development of a new dental panoramic radiographic system based on a tomosynthesis method. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010; 39: 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/12999660
  9. 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: 375-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0257-5
  10. 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: 490-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01032.x
  11. Ladeira DB, Cruz AD, Almeida SM, Boscolo FN. Evaluation of the panoramic image formation in different anatomic positions. Braz Dent J. 2010; 21: 458-62. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402010000500014
  12. Cati A, Celebi A, Valenti-Peruzovi M, Catovi A, Jerolimov V, Mureti I. Evaluation of the precision of dimensional measurements of the mandible on panoramic radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998; 86: 242-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90132-9
  13. Gomez-Roman G, Lukas D, Beniashvili R, Schulte W. Area-dependent enlargement ratios of panoramic tomography on orthograde patient positioning and its significance for implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14: 248-57.
  14. Kim YK, Park JY, Kim SG, Kim JS, Kim JD. Magnification rate of digital panoramic radiographs and its effectiveness for pre-operative assessment of dental implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011; 40: 76-83. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/20544408
  15. Yim JH, Ryu DM, Lee BS, Kwon YD. Analysis of digitalized panorama and cone beam computed tomographic image distortion for the diagnosis of dental implant surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2011; 22: 669-73. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31820745a7
  16. Park JB. The evaluation of digital panoramic radiographs taken for implant dentistry in the daily practice. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010; 15: e663-6.
  17. 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: 430-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(97)90044-5
  18. Takeshita F, Tokoshima T, Suetsugu T. A stent for presurgical evaluation of implant placement. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77: 36-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70204-X