B J Potter1, M K Shrout, C M Russell, M Sharawy. 1. Department of Oral Diagnosis and Patient Services, School of Dentistry, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of two different panoramic imaging systems to produce cross-sectional images with accurate vertical dimensions of the posterior mandible. STUDY DESIGN: Three partially edentulous human cadaver mandibles were used for this study. On each mandible, three potential implant sites were arbitrarily identified in an area between the mental foramen and the ascending ramus. Each site was imaged using two different panoramic machines. Using each image, the mandible's outline, cortical thickness, and position of the mandibular canal were traced on clear acetate film. The mandibles were then sectioned at each site to serve as a gold standard. The cadaver sections and tracings (corrected for magnification) were measured, recording the overall mandibular height, distance from the crest of the ridge to the superior aspect of the mandibular canal, and the thickness of the cortical bone at the most inferior aspect of the mandible. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between either of the system's image measures and the gold standard when considering the distance between the crest and the mandibular canal. Differences were noted between the systems measures and the gold standard in the assessment of the cortical bone thickness and the overall mandibular height. CONCLUSIONS: Both imaging systems can be useful for vertical measurements of a potential implant site in the posterior mandible.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of two different panoramic imaging systems to produce cross-sectional images with accurate vertical dimensions of the posterior mandible. STUDY DESIGN: Three partially edentulous human cadaver mandibles were used for this study. On each mandible, three potential implant sites were arbitrarily identified in an area between the mental foramen and the ascending ramus. Each site was imaged using two different panoramic machines. Using each image, the mandible's outline, cortical thickness, and position of the mandibular canal were traced on clear acetate film. The mandibles were then sectioned at each site to serve as a gold standard. The cadaver sections and tracings (corrected for magnification) were measured, recording the overall mandibular height, distance from the crest of the ridge to the superior aspect of the mandibular canal, and the thickness of the cortical bone at the most inferior aspect of the mandible. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between either of the system's image measures and the gold standard when considering the distance between the crest and the mandibular canal. Differences were noted between the systems measures and the gold standard in the assessment of the cortical bone thickness and the overall mandibular height. CONCLUSIONS: Both imaging systems can be useful for vertical measurements of a potential implant site in the posterior mandible.