SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.76 issue7An overview of COVID-19 infection in dental practices - a questionnaire surveyRice vinegar removes Candida albicans from denture acrylic resins author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


South African Dental Journal

On-line version ISSN 0375-1562
Print version ISSN 0011-8516

Abstract

BESHTAWI, KR; SHAIK, S; PECK, MT  and  CHETTY, M. The accuracy of various radiographic modalities for implant therapy. S. Afr. dent. j. [online]. 2021, vol.76, n.7, pp.396-403. ISSN 0375-1562.  http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2021/v76no7a1.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the dimensional accuracy of radiographic techniques utilized during implant therapy. DESIGN AND METHODS: Six dried human skulls were used to compare three dimensions in ten anatomical segments. Linear distances in-between metallic markers were measured and compared physically, and virtually on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) volumes, panoramic (PAN) and peri-apical (PA) radiographs. The angular distances along the curved arches of both jaws (connecting the upper metallic markers) were measured using cords. One-way ANOVA (p-value < 0.05) tests were executed to statistically analyze the mean differences between physical and virtual distances measured. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to analyze the level of consistency of observers. RESULTS: Statistically significant overall mean difference of all distances comparing physical and radiographic (CBCT, PAN, and PA), with the CBCT showed the least overall submillimeter discrepancy in the maxilla (M.D= -0.638 mm, SD= 0.203) and mandible (M.D=0.326mm, SD=0.23 Overestimations exceeding a millimeter were found in maxilla (M.D=2.229mm, SD=0.856) and mandible (M.D =3.832mm, SD=1.272) of measurements performed on panoramic radiographs. Periapical radiographs exhibited an overall mean maxillary underestimation of -3.707mm, (SD = 1.31) and mandibular mean overestimation of 1.849 mm (SD=0.875). CONCLUSION: CBCT demonstrated a superior submillimeter overall accuracy in comparison to periapical and panoramic radiographs. While PAN and PA presented with individual dimension precision (submillimeter difference), the overall mean of difference for these modalities was inferior when compared with CBCT. CBCT showed superior dimensional stability and thus it is recommended during implant planning phases.

Keywords : CBCT; accuracy; panorama; implant; periapical.

        · text in English     · English ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License