Influence Of Central Panoramic Curve Deviation On The Mandibular Image Reconstruction In The Implant CT.
- Author:
Rae Jeong PARK
1
;
Sam Sun LEE
;
Soon Chul CHOI
;
Tae Won PARK
;
Dong Soo YOU
Author Information
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- MeSH:
Animals;
Bicuspid;
Dental Implants;
Dogs;
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted*;
Mandible;
Molar
- From:Journal of Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
1998;28(1):47-58
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to investigate an influence of the change of central panoramic curves on the image reconstruction in the dental implant CT. The author designed three experimental groups according to the location of central panoramic curve. In group A, central panoramic curve was determined as the curve connecting the center of roots from the first premolar to the first molar. In group B, central panoramic curve was determined as the line connecting the lingual cortical plate at the level of the mesial aspect of the first premolar with the buccal cortical plate at the level of the mesial aspect of the first molar. In group C, central panoramic curve was determined as the line connecting the buccal cortical plate at the level of the mesial aspect of the first molar. Twenty four reformatted CT images was acquired from four mandibles embedded in the resin block and twenty four contact radiographs of dog specimens were acquired. Each image was processed under Adobe Photoshop program analysed by MSPA(mandible/maxilla shape pattern analysis) variables such as MXVD, MXHD, UHD, MHD, and LHD. The obtained results were as follows ; 1. The mean of MXVD variable was 19.9, 20.2, and 20.0 in group A, B, and C, respectively, which were smaller than actual value 20.5. But, there was no significant difference among 3 groups(p>0.05). 2. The mean of MXHD, UHD, MHD, and LHD variables in group A, B, and C was 11.9, 12.2, and 12.3; 9.3, 9.5, and 9.6; 10.0, 10.3, and 10.3; 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4 respectively which were equal to or greater than the actual value 11.8, 9.3, 10.0. But, there was no significant difference among 3 groups(p>0.05). 3. The number of noneffective observations with difference over or under 1mm with comparison to the actual value was 24(20%), 58(48.3%), and 52(43.3%), respectively, in group A, B, and C. 4. In group A, the number of observations over 1mm and under 1mm was 9 and 15, respectively, but in group B and C, the number of observations over 1mm was more than under 1mm.
