An assessment of maxillary sinus and alveolar bone in cross-sectional linear tomogram of panorama.
- Author:
Jae Duk KIM
1
Author Information
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Chosun University. jdakim@mail.chosun.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
radiography, panoramic;
tomography, x-ray;
maxilla;
dental implants
- MeSH:
Bicuspid;
Dental Implants;
Gutta-Percha;
Maxilla;
Maxillary Sinus*;
Molar;
Radiography, Panoramic;
Skull;
Tomography, X-Ray
- From:Korean Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
2003;33(3):137-141
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the precision of measurements taken of dental implants in bucco-lingually sectioned views of the maxilla by linear tomograms of the panorama and to assess the visibility of the inferior wall of the maxillary sinus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty sites prepared with implants of gutta percha cone in the sockets of the upper premolars and molars of 10 dry skulls were radiographically examined using linear tomograms of panorama, and scanned coronally and axially by computed tomography. The differences in mm between the measurements in bucco-lingually sectioned images of maxillary alveolar bone and the true length and width of the implanted gutta percha cones were compared as mean values (mean) and standard deviations (SD) for each radiographic technique. Linear tomography of panorama was compared with computed tomography for visualization of the relationship between the inferior wall of maxillary sinus and the end of each implant. RESULTS: The deviations between the actual implant length and the measured values taken from the linear tomograms (0.44 +/-0.39 mm) was significantly less than the measured values from the multiplanar reconstructed images of the axially scanned computed tomogram (1.21+/-0.90 mm). There was statistically significant difference (p< 0.05) between two techniques in the differences between the measurements and true implant length. The relationship of the inferior border of maxillary sinus with end of implant was worse identified with the linear tomogram of panorama (68%) than the multiplanar reconstructed image of axially scanned computed tomogram (99%). CONCLUSION: We could not find any differences in the accuracy of length measurement between the linear tomogram of panorama and computed tomogram, but computed tomogram allowed for a better visualization of the inferior wall of the maxillary sinus than the linear tomogram.
