OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare periapical radiographs (PA) and panoramic radiographs (PAN) in the measurement of proximal bone height around implants. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Patients files that contained digital PAN and PA together with information on implant lengths and diameters were selected for this study. For each radiograph, the implant size served as reference for calibration. Proximal radiographic bone levels and the linear distance between the bone crest and implant shoulder were measured twice by one examiner. Paired t test was used to assess intra-examiner variability and differences between the two radiographic methods. Correlation was then assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient test. Significance level was determined at 5%. RESULTS: For the PAN measurements, the median mesial distances from bone crest to implant shoulder were 0.53 and 0.56 mm (first and second sets, P = .53). Likewise, for distal measurements these readings were 0.92 and 0.86 mm respectively (P = .66). For PA measurements, the corresponding measurements were 0.33 and 0.44 mm (P = .48) and 0.99 and 0.99 mm (P = .42), respectively. When PAN and PA measurements were compared, no statistically significant differences were detected between the two radiographic modalities. A very high positive correlation (r > 0.91) was attained for the PAN - PA measurements (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: PAN are potentially as reliable and reproducible as PA for the assessment of proximal bone height around dental implants.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare periapical radiographs (PA) and panoramic radiographs (PAN) in the measurement of proximal bone height around implants. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Patients files that contained digital PAN and PA together with information on implant lengths and diameters were selected for this study. For each radiograph, the implant size served as reference for calibration. Proximal radiographic bone levels and the linear distance between the bone crest and implant shoulder were measured twice by one examiner. Paired t test was used to assess intra-examiner variability and differences between the two radiographic methods. Correlation was then assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient test. Significance level was determined at 5%. RESULTS: For the PAN measurements, the median mesial distances from bone crest to implant shoulder were 0.53 and 0.56 mm (first and second sets, P = .53). Likewise, for distal measurements these readings were 0.92 and 0.86 mm respectively (P = .66). For PA measurements, the corresponding measurements were 0.33 and 0.44 mm (P = .48) and 0.99 and 0.99 mm (P = .42), respectively. When PAN and PA measurements were compared, no statistically significant differences were detected between the two radiographic modalities. A very high positive correlation (r > 0.91) was attained for the PAN - PA measurements (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: PAN are potentially as reliable and reproducible as PA for the assessment of proximal bone height around dental implants.