All Issue

2018 Vol.22, Issue 2 Preview Page
June 2018. pp. 88-98
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the mean residual alveolar bone height according to various measuring points of male edentulous patients. And to compare the residual alveolar bone height differences observed in panoramic and computed tomography images for analyzing the predictable distortion trends in panoramic radiography.Materials and Methods: The study used 40 images of the maxilla and mandible, excluding computed tomography and panoramic images. Based on the anatomical indices, the measurement values of each image were obtained by setting 7 measuring points of the maxilla and 9 measuring points of the mandible. The significant difference was statistically analyzed by paired t test comparing the measurement values observed on computed tomography and panoramic radiography (p<0.05).Results: The mean residual alveolar bone height was more than 15.5 mm in the maxillary anterior part, 8.2 mm in posterior part, 27.7 mm in the mandibular anterior part, and the mandibular posterior part was 11.1 mm. The result of paired t-test comparing the computed tomography and panoramic images showed that the maxillary right central incisor position, maxillary left second premolar, maxillary right second premolar, mandibular left first premolar, mandibular right first premolar, mandibular left second premolar, mandibular right second premolar, mandibular left first molar, mandibular right first molar positions of residual alveolar bone height were significantly different between two images.(p<0.05).Conclusion: It is considered that the reliability of the panoramic radiography is low because there is a significant difference in the residual alveolar bone height observed on computed tomography and panoramic radiography images.
  1. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed. Mosby, St. Louis, USA. 1997; 3-12.
  2. Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977; 16: 1-132.356184
  3. Zarb G, Schmitt A. Edentulous predicament. I. A prospective study of the effectiveness of implant supported fixed prostheses. J Am Dent Assoc. 1996; 127: 59.10.14219/jada.archive.1996.00318568099
  4. Jonkman RE, van Waas MA, Plooij J, Kalk W. Measuring mandibular ridge reduction on oblique cephalometric radiographs. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1991; 19: 27-30.10.1016/S1010-5182(05)80268-9
  5. Van Waas MA. Ridge resorption in denture wearers after vestibuloplasty and lowering of the floor of the mouth, measured on panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1983; 12: 115-121.10.1259/dmfr.1983.00196584360
  6. Swart JG, Allard RH. Subperiosteal onlay augmentation of the mandible: a clinical and radiographic survey. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1985; 43: 183-187.10.1016/0278-2391(85)90157-0
  7. Wilding RJ, Levin I, Pepper R. The use of panoramic radiographs to measure alveolar bone areas. J Oral Rehabil. 1987; 14: 557-567.10.1111/j.1365-2842.1987.tb00752.x3481395
  8. Humphries S, Devlin H, Worthington H. A radiographic investigation into bone resorption of mandibular alveolar bone in elderly edentulous adults. J Dent. 1989; 17: 94-96.10.1016/0300-5712(89)90141-3
  9. Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, Van Steenberghe D, Sanderink G, Quirynen M. Appearance of the mandibular incisive canal on panoramic radiographs. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004; 26: 329-333.10.1007/s00276-004-0242-215197490
  10. Dharmar S. Locating the mandibular canal in panoramic radiographs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 113-117.9048463
  11. Bou Serhal C, Jacobs R, Flygare L, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Perioperative validation of localisation of the mental foramen. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002; 31: 39-43.10.1038/sj.dmfr.460066211803387
  12. Xie Q, Wolf J, Ainamo A. Quantitative assessment of vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular bones in panoramic radiographs of elderly dentate and edentulous subjects. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997; 55: 155-161.10.3109/000163597091154099226425
  13. Thanyakarn C, Hansen K, Rohlin M. Measurements of tooth length in panoramic radiographs. 2: Observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1992; 21: 31-35.10.1259/dmfr.21.1.13974491397449
  14. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Naert I, Quirynen M, Hermans R, Van Steenberghe D. Predictability of reformatted computed tomography for pre-operative planning of endosseous implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999; 28: 37-41.10.1038/sj.dmfr.460040310202477
  15. Scandrett FR, Tebo HG, Miller JT, Quigley MB. Radiographic examination of the edentulous patient. I. Review of the literature and preliminary report comparing three methods. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1973; 35: 266-274.10.1016/0030-4220(73)90293-4
  16. Sakakura CE, Loffredo Lde C, Scaf G. Diagnostic agreement of conventional and inverted scanned panoramic radiographs in the detection of the mandibular canal and the mental foramen. J Oral Implantol. 2004; 30: 2-6.10.1563/1548-1336(2004)030<0002:DAOCAI>2.0.CO;2
  17. Shin JW. Dental anatomy. 3rd ed. DaehanNarae Publishing, Inc, Seoul, Korea. 2010; 65-221.
  18. Angelopoulos C, Thomas S, Hechler S, Parissis N and Hlavacek M. Comparison Between Digital Panoramic Radiography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for the Identification of the Mandibular Canal as Part of Presurgical Dental Implant Assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66: 2130-2135.10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.02118848113
  19. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. Mosby, St. Louis, USA. 2008;.939-951.
  20. Kim IS, Kim SG, Kim YK, Kim JD. Position of the mental foramen in a Korean population: a clinical and radiographic study. Implant Dent. 2006; 15: 404-411.10.1097/