Implant image quality in dental radiographs recorded using a customized imaging guide or a standard film holder

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.

Evaluating craniofacial asymmetry with digital cephalometric images and cone-beam computed tomography

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate craniofacial asymmetry by using 2-dimensional (2D) poster-oanterior cephalometric images, 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and physical measurements (gold standard). Methods: Ten dry human skulls were assessed, and radiopaque markers were placed on 17 skeletal landmarks. Twenty linear measurements were taken on each side to compare the right and left sides and to compare these measurements with the physical measurements made with a digital caliper. To acquire the 2D posteroanterior radiographs, an Extraoral Phosphor Storage Plate (Air Techniques, Chicago, Ill) was used as the image receptor with a Eureka x-ray-Duocon Machlett unit (Machlett Laboratores, Chicago, Ill). Three-dimensional imaging data were acquired from a CB MercuRay (Hitachi Medical, Tokyo, Japan). Results: on average, the right side was larger than the left for most of the 20 distances evaluated in the digital 2D and the CBCT images, and there was poor agreement between the digital 2D images and the physical measurements (kappa = 0.0609) and almost perfect agreement (kappa = 0.92) between the CBCT and physical measurements when individual measurements were considered. Conclusions: Human skulls, with no apparent asymmetry, had some differences between the right and left sides, with dominance for the right side but with no clinical significance. CBCT can better evaluate craniofacial morphology when compared with digital 2D images. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: e523-e531)