Three-Dimensional versus two- dimensional Radiographic Analysis of Alveolar Bone Dimensions and Maxillofacial Landmarks: A Comparative Evaluation for Precision Treatment Planning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63682/jns.v14i32S.7549Keywords:
N\AAbstract
Background: Dental radiography is essential for diagnosing oral and maxillofacial conditions. Panoramic radiography (OPG) offers a cost-effective two-dimensional view suitable for routine assessments, while cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides three-dimensional imaging, ideal for complex cases like implant planning and surgical precision. Although OPG is quick and low in radiation, it has spatial inaccuracies, making CBCT preferable for advanced diagnostics. Evaluating OPG's magnification factor is vital for accurate diagnoses.
Methods: Seventy-five patients at Inderprastha Dental College and Hospital with clear OPG and CBCT images of maxillary and mandibular landmarks were included. Only patients without jaw pathologies and with healthy periodontal conditions were selected. Vertical and horizontal distances from key anatomical sites were measured, with CBCT used as the reference. Statistical analyses validated the results.
Results: OPG measurements of alveolar bone dimensions were comparable to CBCT, showing a strong positive correlation (r = 0.924 to 0.994; p < 0.001). Minor accuracy discrepancies were noted in complex regions, although statistically insignificant. These variations may be relevant in high-precision cases like implant placement. CBCT’s three-dimensional imaging provides superior insights into critical spatial relationships.
Conclusion: OPG is reliable for routine alveolar bone measurements, but slight variations in complex areas can affect precision. While OPG is effective for preliminary assessments, CBCT offers enhanced accuracy for intricate cases, such as surgical procedures.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Chauhan V, Wilkins RC. A comprehensive review of the literature on the biological effects from dental x-ray exposures. Int J Radiat Biol. 2019;95(2):107-119. doi:10.1080/09553002.2019.1547436
Marinela T, Crina I, Trascu C, Dogioiu FC, Damian I, Cosconel C, Epistatu D. Comparative dimensional study between panoramic X-ray (OPG) and cone beam CT (CBCT). Ars Medica Tomitana. 2016;3(22):196-202. doi:10.1515/arsm-2016-0033
Hernandez Y, Tarazona B, Zamora N, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. Comparative study of reproducibility and accuracy in measuring mesiodistal tooth sizes using three different methods: 2D digital, 3D CBCT, and 3D CBCT segmented. Oral Radiol. 2015;31(3):165-172. doi:10.1007/s11282-015-0204-x
Brullmann D, Schulze RK. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications—what do we know today? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140204. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20140204
Ghaeminia H, Meijer GJ, Soehardi A, Borstlap WA, Mulder J, Vlijmen OJ, Berge SJ, Maal TJ. The use of cone beam CT for the removal of wisdom teeth changes the surgical approach compared with panoramic radiography: A pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;40(8):834-839. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2011.02.032
Haideral Z. The role of CBCT in implant dentistry: Uses, benefits, and limitations. Br Dent J. 2020;228(7).
Choi JW. Assessment of panoramic radiography as a national oral examination tool: Review of the literature. Imaging Sci Dent. 2011;41(1):1-6.
White SC, Weissman DD. Relative discernment of lesions by intraoral and panoramic radiography. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;95(6):1117-1121.
Douglass CW, Valachovic RW, Wijesinha A, Chauncey HH, Kapur KK, McNeil BJ. Clinical efficacy of dental radiography in the detection of dental caries and periodontal diseases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1986;62(3):330-339.
Meister JR, Simpson J, Davies EE. Oral health of airmen: Analysis of panoramic radiographic and Polaroid photographic survey. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;94(2):335-339.
Morris CR, Marano PD, Swimley DC, Runco JG. Abnormalities noted on panoramic radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1969;28(5):772-782.
Haideral Z. The role of CBCT in implant dentistry: Uses, benefits, and limitations. Br Dent J. 2020;228(7).
Tang Z, Liu X, Chen K. Comparison of digital panoramic radiography versus cone beam computerized tomography for measuring alveolar bone. Head Face Med. 2017;13(2). doi:10.1186/s13005-017-0135-3
Tonea M, Ivanciu C, Trascu C, Dogioiu FC, Damian I, Cosconel C, Epistatu D. Comparative dimensional study between panoramic X-ray (OPG) and cone beam CT (CBCT). Ars Medica Tomitana. 2016;3:196-202. doi:10.1515/arsm-2016-0033
Adarsh K, Sharma P, Juneja A. Accuracy and reliability of tooth length measurements on conventional and CBCT images: An in vitro comparative study. J Orthod Sci. 2018;7(17). doi:10.4103/jos.JOS_21_18
Kim HJ, Jo YJ, Choi JS, Kim HJ, Kim J, Moon SY. Anatomical risk factors of inferior alveolar nerve injury associated with surgical extraction of mandibular third molar in Korean population. Appl Sci. 2021;11(816).
Ghai S, Choudhury S. Role of panoramic imaging and cone beam CT for assessment of inferior alveolar nerve exposure and subsequent paresthesia following removal of impacted mandibular third molar. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018;17(242-247).
Sghaireen MG, Srivastava KC, Shrivastava D, Ganji KK, Patil SR, Abuonq A, et al. A CBCT-based three-dimensional assessment of mandibular posterior region for evaluating the possibility of bypassing the inferior alveolar nerve while placing dental implants. Diagnostics. 2020;10(406).
Neves FS, Souza TC, Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F, Freitas DQ, Boscolo FN. Correlation of panoramic radiography and cone beam CT findings in the assessment of the relationship between impacted mandibular third molars and the mandibular canal. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(553-557).
Zain-Alabdeen EH, Alhazmi RA, Alsaedi RN, Alouf AA, Alahmady OA. Preoperative cone beam computed tomography evaluation of mandibular second and third molars in relation to the inferior alveolar canal. Saudi J Health Sci. 2020;9(243-247).
Kubota S, Imai T, Nakazawa M, Uzawa N. Risk stratification against inferior alveolar nerve injury after lower third molar extraction by scoring on cone-beam computed tomography image. Odontology. 2020;108(124-132).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
