AIM: Information about the agreement between periapical and panoramic radiographs is limited. A comparative morphologic and radiographic study of the trabecular bone pattern in the mandible was made. METHODS: To assess the agreement between the two different radiographic techniques, periapical and panoramic radiographs of 50 adult patients, from the documentation files of the Radiology Course at the Faculty of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, were digitized. Regions of interest in the bone trabeculae were selected in both techniques, being the lower canine surroundings in the mandible body (basal bone) the preferred region of selection. Images of interest were processed by the NIH Image software to convert bitmaps into skeletonizations, a mathematical morphology operation, and check bone trabecular pattern so as to evaluate the occurrence of different results when using either radiographic techniques. RESULTS: This study showed that the morpho-radiographical comparison of the trabecular bone pattern in the mandible, using digitized images of panoramic and periapical radiographs, presented significantly different results between both techniques (P<0.05). Limitations in image quality inherent to panoramic radiology contribute to a reduced diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical interpretation of intraoral and panoramic radiographic images regarding bone quality should be taken carefully. Research is also indicated to further develop such selection criteria.
AIM: Information about the agreement between periapical and panoramic radiographs is limited. A comparative morphologic and radiographic study of the trabecular bone pattern in the mandible was made. METHODS: To assess the agreement between the two different radiographic techniques, periapical and panoramic radiographs of 50 adult patients, from the documentation files of the Radiology Course at the Faculty of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, were digitized. Regions of interest in the bone trabeculae were selected in both techniques, being the lower canine surroundings in the mandible body (basal bone) the preferred region of selection. Images of interest were processed by the NIH Image software to convert bitmaps into skeletonizations, a mathematical morphology operation, and check bone trabecular pattern so as to evaluate the occurrence of different results when using either radiographic techniques. RESULTS: This study showed that the morpho-radiographical comparison of the trabecular bone pattern in the mandible, using digitized images of panoramic and periapical radiographs, presented significantly different results between both techniques (P<0.05). Limitations in image quality inherent to panoramic radiology contribute to a reduced diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical interpretation of intraoral and panoramic radiographic images regarding bone quality should be taken carefully. Research is also indicated to further develop such selection criteria.