Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of different radiographic methods in the assessment of proximal alveolar bone loss (ABL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: ABL, the distance between cement-enamel junction and alveolar bone crest, was measured in 70 mandibular human teeth - directly on the mandibles (control), using conventional periapical radiography with film holders (Rinn XCP and Han-Shin), digital periapical radiography with complementary metal-oxide semiconductor sensor, conventional panoramic, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Three programs were used to measure ABL on the images: Image tool 3.0 (University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA), Kodak Imaging 6.1 (Kodak Dental Imaging 6.1, Carestream Health(®), Rochester, NY, USA), and i-CAT vision 1.6.20. Statistical analysis used ANOVA and Tukey's test at 5% significance level. RESULTS: The tomographic images showed the highest means, whereas the lowest were found for periapical with Han-Shin. Controls differed from periapical with Han-Shin (P < 0.0001). CBCT differed from panoramic (P = 0.0130), periapical with Rinn XCP (P = 0.0066), periapical with Han-Shin (P < 0.0001), and digital periapical (P = 0.0027). Conventional periapicals with film holders differed from each other (P = 0.0007). Digital periapical differed from conventional periapical with Han-Shin (P = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional periapical with Han-Shin film holder was the only method that differed from the controls. CBCT had the closest means to the controls.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takeshita et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: