The magnification in the lower third and second molar region in the digital panoramic radiographs

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Aug 1, 2017
https://doi.org/10.4103/jfo.jfds_48_16
Download
pdf
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 9, Issue 2, May-August 2017

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Giedrė Trakiniene
Department of Odontology, Clinic of Orthodontics, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Academy of Medicine, Kaunas
Antanas Šidlauskas
Department of Odontology, Clinic of Orthodontics, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Academy of Medicine, Kaunas
Vilma Švalkauskienė
Department of Odontology, Clinic of Orthodontics, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Academy of Medicine, Kaunas
Dalia Smailienė
Department of Odontology, Clinic of Orthodontics, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Academy of Medicine, Kaunas
Julija Urbonė
Department of Odontology, Clinic of Orthodontics, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Academy of Medicine, Kaunas

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of linear measurements of the lower third and second molar crowns in the digital panoramic radiographs and to compare them with plaster models as the calibration standard. Materials and Methods: The digital panoramic radiographs and plaster models of the orthodontic patients were used in the study. Standardized metal calibration gauges (MCGs) were bonded to the buccal surface of the lower molars bilaterally. Measurements in the panoramic radiographs were done using Dolphin Imaging 11.8 Premium program. Results: Forty-one panoramic radiographs and diagnostic plaster models of the orthodontic patients (mean age 18.45 ± 2.35) were analyzed. Eighty-two lower third molars, 82 second molars, and 82 first molars were evaluated. The magnification coefficients (MCC) calculated according to the plaster models ranged from 1.07 to 1.08. The magnification coefficients calculated according to the bonded MCG were about 1.04. The differences between the teeth groups and right-left sides were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Spearman correlation showed a positive medium correlation between the magnification using the calibration with plaster models and metal gauges (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The magnification in the lower first, second, and third molars regions showed almost the same values. The calculation of magnification coefficient using bonded metal calipers was more accurate than calculation according to the plaster models, but the differences were not statistically significant. The use of the plaster models for calibration of the magnification coefficient in the good-positioned lower molars' region might be used as an alternative to the bonded MCGs.
Trial registration: The Lithuanian University of Health Sciences BC-OF-73 retrospectively registered.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Giedrė Trakiniene, Antanas Šidlauskas, Vilma Švalkauskienė, Dalia Smailienė, & Julija Urbonė. (2017). The magnification in the lower third and second molar region in the digital panoramic radiographs. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 9(2), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfo.jfds_48_16
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Razi T, Moslemzade SH, Razi S. Comparison of linear dimensions and angular measurements on panoramic images taken with two machines. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2009;3:7-10.
  2. Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: Retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ 2005;331:77.
  3. Claus EB, Calvocoressi L, Bondy ML, Schildkraut JM, Wiemels JL, Wrensch M. Dental x-rays and risk of meningioma. Cancer 2012;118:4530-7.
  4. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:424-9.
  5. Cho YS. Diagnostic value of dental CT (DentaScan) in dental implant. Chungbuk Med J 1998;8:11-9.
  6. Abdinian M, Soheilipour F, Nazeri R, Ghorbanizadeh S. Investigation of the magnification of digital panoramic radiographs in different regions of the jaws. SRM J Res Dent Sci 2016;7:10‑6.
  7. Sakakura CE, Morais JA, Loffredo LC, Scaf G. A survey of radiographic prescription in dental implant assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:397-400.
  8. Yim JH, Ryu DM, Lee BS, Kwon YD. Analysis of digitalized panorama and cone beam computed tomographic image distortion for the diagnosis of dental implant surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22:669‑73.
  9. Rohlin M, Akerblom A. Individualized periapical radiography determined by clinical and panoramic examination. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995;48:68‑75.
  10. Xie Q, Soikkonen K, Wolf J, Mattila K, Gong M, Ainamo A. Effect of head positioning in panoramic radiography on vertical measurements: An in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996;25:61‑6.
  11. Ladeira DB, Cruz AD, Almeida SM, Boscolo FN. Influence of the intergonial distance on image distortion in panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:417-21.
  12. Devlin H, Yuan J. Object position and image magnification in dental panoramic radiography: A theoretical analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:20120045.
  13. Pawar RR, Makdissi J. The role of focal block (trough/plane) in panoramic radiography: Why do some structures appear blurred out on these images? Radiography 2014;20:167‑70.
  14. Park JB. The evaluation of digital panoramic radiographs taken for implant dentistry in the daily practice. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:e663‑6.
  15. Tieu LD, Normando D, Toogood R, Flores-Mir C. Impact on perceived root resorption based on the amount of incisal inclination as determined from conventional panoramic radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:685‑91.
  16. VazquezL, NizamaldinY, CombescureC, NedirR, BischofM, Dohan Ehrenfest DM, et al. Accuracy of vertical height measurements on direct digital panoramic radiographs using posterior mandibular implants and metal balls as reference objects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:20110429.
  17. Jeong CH, Kim JD. A study on measurements of tooth length in orthopantomogram. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 1994;24:129-35.
  18. Mckee IW, Glover KE, Williamson PC, Lam EW, Heo G, Major PW. The effect of vertical and horizontal head positioning in panoramic radiography on mesiodistal tooth angulations. Angle Orthod 2000;71:442-51.
  19. Kandasamy S, Rinchuse DJ, Rinchuse DJ. The wisdom behind third molar extractions. Aust Dent J 2009;54:284-92.
  20. Kandasamy S. Evaluation and management of asymptomatic third molars: Watchful monitoring is a low-risk alternative to extraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:11-7.
  21. Raoof M, Haghani J, Ebrahimi M. Evaluation of horizontal magnification on panoramic images. Indian J Dent Res 2013;24:294‑7.
  22. Laster WS, Ludlow JB, Bailey LJ, Hershey HG. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy and prediction of asymmetry in panoramic radiographic images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:343-9.
  23. Schulze R, Krummenauer F, Schalldach F, d’Hoedt B. Precision and accuracy of measurements in digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000;29:52‑6.
  24. McIver FT, Brogan DR, Lyman GE. Effect of head positioning upon the width of mandibular tooth images on panoramic radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1973;35:698‑707.
  25. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:490-7.
  26. Catic A, Celebic A, Valentic‑Peruzovic M, Catovic A, Kuna T. Dimensional measurements on the human dental panoramic radiographs. Coll Antropol 1998;22:139-45.
  27. Schnelle MA, Beck FM, Jaynes RM, Huja SS. A radiographic evaluation of the availability of bone for placement of miniscrews. Angle Orthod 2004;74:832-7.
  28. Kim KD, Jeong HG, Choi SH, Hwang EH, Park CS. Effect of mandibular positioning on preimplant site measurement of the mandible in reformatted CT. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23:177-83.
  29. Welander U, Wickman G. Image distortion in narrow beam rotation radiography. A mathematical analysis. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1978;19:507-12.
  30. Tronje G, Welander U, McDavid WD, Morris CR. Image distortion in rotational panoramic radiography. IV. Object morphology; outer contours. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1981;22:689‑96.