Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Calibration of radiographs by a reference metal ball affects preoperative selection of implant size

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim was to evaluate the impact of a reference ball for calibration of periapical and panoramic radiographs on preoperative selection of implant size for three implant systems. Presurgical digital radiographs (70 panoramic, 43 periapical) from 70 patients scheduled for single-tooth implant treatment, recorded with a metal ball placed in the edentulous area, were evaluated by three observers with the intent to select the appropriate implant size. Four reference marks corresponding to the margins of the metal ball were manually placed on the digital image by means of computer software. Additionally, an implant with proper dimensions for the respective site was outlined by manually placing four reference marks. The diameter of the metal ball and the unadjusted length and width of the implant were calculated. Implant size was adjusted according to a “standard” calibration method (SCM; magnification factor 1.25 in panoramic images and 1.05 in periapical images) and according to a reference ball calibration method (RCM; true magnification). Based on the unadjusted as well as the adjusted implant dimensions, the implant size was selected among those available in a given implant system. For periapical radiographs, when comparing SCM and RCM with unadjusted implant dimensions, implant size changed in 42% and 58%, respectively. When comparing SCM and RCM, implant size changed in 24%. For panoramic radiographs, comparing SCM and RCM changed implant size in 48%. The use of a reference metal ball for calibration of periapical and panoramic radiographs when selecting implant size during treatment planning might be advantageous.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Batenburg RH, Stellingsma K, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A (1997) Bone height measurements on panoramic radiographs: the effect of shape and position of edentulous mandibles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 84:430–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Borrow JW, Smith JP (1996) Stent marker materials for computerized tomograph-assisted implant planning. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 16:60–67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Carinci F (2007) Do longer implants improve clinical outcome in immediate loading? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:1172–1176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Diniz AF, Mendonca EF, Leles CR, Guilherme AS, Cavalcante MP, Silva MA (2008) Changes in the pre-surgical treatment planning using conventional spiral tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:249–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Cal E, Ow RK (2000) Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:662–667

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S, Grippaudo G (2002) A long-term follow-up study of non-submerged ITI implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Part I: Ten-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 1286 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:260–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K (2004) 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 15:490–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gastaldo JF, Cury PR, Sendyk WR (2004) Effect of the vertical and horizontal distances between adjacent implants and between a tooth and an implant on the incidence of interproximal papilla. J Periodontol 75:1242–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gomez-Roman G, Lukas D, Beniashvili R, Schulte W (1999) Area-dependent enlargement ratios of panoramic tomography on orthograde patient positioning and its significance for implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:248–257

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gotfredsen E, Kragskov J, Wenzel A (1999) Development of a system for craniofacial analysis from monitor-displayed digital images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 28:123–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Horner K, Drage N, Brettle D (2008) Panoramic equipment and imaging. In: Horner K, Drage N, Brettle D (eds) 21st century imaging. Quintessence Publishing Co., London, pp 29–44

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D (1998) Radiographic indications and contra-indications for implant placement. In: Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D (eds) Radiographic planning and assessment of endosseous oral implants. Springer, Berlin, pp 45–58

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D (1998) Radiographic planning and assessment of endosseous oral implants. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP (2008) A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:119–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Larheim TA, Eggen S (1979) Determination of tooth length with a standardized paralleling technique and calibrated radiographic measuring film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 48:374–378

    Google Scholar 

  16. Renouard F, Nisand D (2006) Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(Suppl 2):35–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L (2001) Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 92:458–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tarnow D, Elian N, Fletcher P, Froum S, Magner A, Cho SC et al (2003) Vertical distance from the crest of bone to the height of the interproximal papilla between adjacent implants. J Periodontol 74:1785–1788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS (2000) The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 71:546–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tronje G, Welander U, McDavid WD, Morris CR (1981) Image distortion in rotational panoramic radiography. I. General considerations. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 22:295–299

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tronje G, Welander U, McDavid WD, Morris CR (1982) Image distortion in rotational panoramic radiography. VI. Distortion effects in sliding systems. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 23:153–160

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tyndall AA, Brooks SL (2000) Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 89:630–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. White SC, Pharoah MJ (2004) Projection geometry. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ (eds) Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. Mosby, St. Louis, MO, pp 83–90

    Google Scholar 

  24. Winkler S, Morris HF, Ochi S (2000) Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter. Ann Periodontol 5:22–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Lars Schropp

  2. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Andreas Stavropoulos

  3. Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Erik Gotfredsen & Ann Wenzel

Authors
  1. Lars Schropp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Stavropoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erik Gotfredsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ann Wenzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Schropp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schropp, L., Stavropoulos, A., Gotfredsen, E. et al. Calibration of radiographs by a reference metal ball affects preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Invest 13, 375–381 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0257-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0257-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation