Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 715–719 | Cite as

Spatial relation between a rigid (digital) intraoral X-ray receptor and longitudinal axes of maxillary teeth

  • Felix Roeder
  • Isabell von Rechenberg
  • Bernd d’Hoedt
  • Ralf Schulze
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to quantify the existing (inevitable) angle which in intraoral radiology appears between tooth length axis and receptor caused by the anatomical situation. Especially in the upper jaw, due to its arched anatomy, a true “paralleling technique” is not achievable. The angulation necessarily causes distortion and a foreshortening of the image; hence, the foreshortened image leads to misinterpretations in diagnostics. We investigated the effects of the realistic angulation on these image deteriorating factors. Two hundred ninety-four plaster models of the upper jaw were collected, and the angles between a dummy receptor and the axes of the central incisor or the first molar were measured. For evaluation, a rigid dummy of an intraoral charge-coupled device (CCD) receptor (30 mm × 40 mm) was used. The mean angulation evaluated for central incisors was 36.7° (range 19–56°) and for first molars 42.5° (range 26–56°). This leads to a foreshortening of the tooth ranging from 5.4% to 44.1% in the image, when magnification is neglected. Large angles of up to 56°, in both incisor and molar region, result in a relevant underestimation of true tooth length up to 44%. It is important to note that this error cannot be simply corrected by means of local magnification correction. Techniques should be developed that allow for automated assessment of the effective angle to provide information for distortion correction.

Keywords

Dental radiography Digital Measurement Anatomy maxilla Projection geometry 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work includes parts of the thesis of Isabell von Rechenberg, entitled “Projection analysis and determination of angles between tooth’s length axis and receptor in intraoral radiology in the maxilla using rigid (digital) sensors”.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Van Aken J (1969) Optimum conditions for intraoral roentgenograms. Oral Surg 27:475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schulze R, d’Hoedt B (2001) Mathematical analysis of projection errors in “paralleling technique” with respect to implant geometry. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:364–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schulze R, d'Hoedt B (2002) A method to calculate angular disparities between object and receptor in “paralleling technique”. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 31:32–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roeder F, Brüllmann D, d'Hoedt B, Schulze R (2010) Ex vivo radiographic tooth length measurements with the reference sphere method (RSM). Clin Oral Invest (in press)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eickholz P, Hausmann E (2000) Accuracy of radiographic assessment of interproximal bone loss in intrabony defects using linear measurements. Eur J Oral Sci 108:70–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim TS, Obst C, Zehaczek S, Geenen C (2008) Detection of bone loss with different X-ray techniques in periodontal patients. J Periodontol 79:1141–1149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzal A (2009) Calibration of radiographs by a reference metal ball affects preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Investig 13:375–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 89:630–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    BouSerhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D (2002) Imaging technique selection for the preoperative planning of oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 4:156–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams CB, Joyce AP, Roberts S (2006) A comparison between in vivo radiographic working length determination and measurement after extraction. J Endod 32:624–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Behneke N, Tetsch P (1985) Diagnostik und Planung von Implantaten im zahnlosen Unterkiefer. Fortsch Zahnärztl Implantol 1:266–271Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benn DK (1990) A review of the reliability of radiographic measurements in estimating alveolar bone changes. J Clin Periodontol 17:14–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubrez B, Jacot-Dsecombes S, Cimasoni G (1995) Reliability of a paralleling instrument for dental radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 80:358–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zappa U, Simona C, Graf H, van Aken J (1991) In vivo determination of radiographic projection errors produced by a novel filmholder and an x-ray beam manipulator. J Periodontol 62:674–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dixon CA, Hildebolt CF (2005) An overview of radiographic film holders. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 34:67–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu JC, Huang JN, Zhao SF, Xu XJ, Zhang JC, Xia B, Dong YF (2005) Use of a simple intraoral instrument to standardize film alignment and improve image reproducibility. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 100:99–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schulze R, Bruellmann DD, Roeder F, d'Hoedt B (2004) Determination of projection geometry from quantitative assessment of the distortion of spherical references in single-view projection radiography. Med Phys 31:2849–2854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schulze RKW (2010) Pose determination of a cylindrical (dental) implant in three-dimensions from a single two-dimensional radiograph. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39:33–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulze R, Roeder F (2009) Device, bite element and system for intraoral radiography. Patent application: DE102 00 901 7905.4, applicant: Johannes Gutenberg-University of MainzGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mühlreiter E, de Jonge TE (1928) Anatomie des menschlichen Gebisses, 5th edn. Felix Verlag, Leipzig, pp 25–43Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jenkins SM, Dummer PM, Newcombe RG (1995) Radiographic amelocemental junction and alveolar crest: effect of x-ray beam angulation. J Oral Rehabil 22:679–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Santos-Pinto L, Cordeiro Rde C, Zuanon AC, Basso MD, Gonçalves MA (2007) Primary tooth length determination in direct digital radiography: an in vivo study. Pediatr Dent 29:470–474PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krithika AC, Kandaswamy D, Velmurugan N, Krishna VG (2008) Non-metallic grid for radiographic measurement. Aust Endod J 34:36–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Roeder
    • 1
    • 2
  • Isabell von Rechenberg
    • 1
  • Bernd d’Hoedt
    • 1
  • Ralf Schulze
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral Surgery (and Oral Radiology)University Medical Center of the Johannes-Gutenberg-University Mainz, Dental SchoolMainzGermany
  2. 2.Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche ChirurgieUniversitätsmedizin MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations