z-logo
Premium
Implant image quality in dental radiographs recorded using a customized imaging guide or a standard film holder
Author(s) -
Schropp Lars,
Stavropoulos Andreas,
SpinNeto Rubens,
Wenzel Ann
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02180.x
Subject(s) - radiography , medicine , implant , imaging phantom , image quality , dental implant , rendering (computer graphics) , dentistry , orthodontics , nuclear medicine , computer science , surgery , computer vision , image (mathematics)
Objective: To compare a customized imaging guide and a standard film holder for obtaining optimally projected intraoral radiographs of dental implants.Material and methods: Intraoral radiographs of four screw‐type implants with different inclination placed in an upper or lower dental phantom model were recorded by 32 groups of examiners after a short instruction in the use of the RB‐RB/LB‐LB mnemonic rule. Half of the examiners recorded the images using a standard film holder and the other half used a customized imaging guide. Each radiograph was assessed under blinded conditions with regard to rendering of the implant threads and was assigned to one of four quality categories: (1) perfect, (2) not perfect, but clinically acceptable, (3) not acceptable, and (4) hopeless.Results: For the upper jaw, the same number of exposures per implant were made to achieve an acceptable image ( P =0.86) by the standard film holder method (median=2) and the imaging guide method (median=2). For the lower jaw, medians for the imaging guide method and the film holder method were 1 and 2, respectively ( P =0.004). For the imaging guide method , the first exposure was rated as perfect/acceptable in 62% of the cases and for the film holder method in 41% of the cases ( P =0.013). After ≤2 exposures, 78% ( imaging guide method ) and 69% ( film holder method ) of the implant images were perfect/acceptable ( P =0.23). The implant inclination did not have a major influence on the outcomes.Conclusion: Perfect or acceptable images were achieved after two exposures with the same frequency either using a customized imaging guide method or a standard film holder method . However, the use of a customized imaging guide method was overall significantly superior to a standard film holder method in terms of obtaining perfect or acceptable images with only one exposure.To cite this article: 
Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Spin‐Neto R, Wenzel A. Implant image quality in dental radiographs recorded using a customized imaging guide or a standard film holder.
 Clin. Oral Impl. Res . 23 , 2012; 55–59.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2011.02180.x

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom