Oral Radiology

, 25:129 | Cite as

Converting conventional radiographic examination data of trabecular bone pattern values into density measurement values using intraoral digital images

  • Menik Priaminiarti
  • Budi Utomo
  • R. Susworo
  • Hanna Bachtiar Iskandar
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the conversion value of grayscale density measurements from intraoral conventional radiographic examinations of the edentulous maxilla and mandible using intraoral digital radiography.

Methods

Periapical radiography examinations with a pararelling technique, both conventional and digital, were performed on 18 male and 34 female patients with edentulous maxillas and mandibles. The trabecular bone pattern of 42 maxillary and 61 mandibular regions of interest (ROIs) was classified into five grades. Grayscale density measurements were made within a marked area of the ROI in the image of the periapical digital radiograph in the same corresponding trabecular region. To obtain conversion values, including the effects of age, gender, and region of the jaw, an analysis was made to develop regression equations.

Results

The kappa value for intra- and interobserver differences was 0.71–0.85. The strength of the radiographic conventional value to predict the grayscale density measurement of digital radiography was gained from the regression analysis, with R2 = 0.75–0.8. The regression equation for the maxilla and the mandible were separated, and the age, gender, and region of the jaws were included.

Conclusions

Conventional intraoral radiographic values of the trabecular bone pattern can be converted to values of grayscale density measurements from intraoral digital radiography. The regression equation for the conversion was obtained by including the effects of age, gender, and region of the jaw.

Keywords

Conversion value Density measurement Intraoral conventional radiography Digital radiography Regression equation 

References

  1. 1.
    White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2004. pp. 71–120, 225–77, 314–29, 677–91.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Whaithes E. Essentials of dental radiography and radiology. 3rd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2007. p. 289–97.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mupparapu M, Sinner SR. Implant imaging for the dentist. J Can Dent Assoc. 2004;70(1):32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berkhout WER, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt PF. Does digital radiography increase the number of intraoral radiographs? A questionnaire study of Dutch dental practices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003;32:124–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Stelt PF. Filmless imaging: the uses of digital radiography in dental practice. JADA. 2005;136:1379–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parks ET, Williamson GF. Digital radiography: an overview. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2002;3(4):23–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoshiura K, Welander U, David WM, Li G, Shi X-Q, Nakayama E, et al. Comparison of the psychophysical properties of various intraoral film and digital systems by means of the perceptibility curve test. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:98–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taguchi A, Tanimoto K, Akagawa Y, Wada T, Rohlin M. Trabecular bone pattern of the mandible: comparison of panoramic and CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1997;26:85–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taguchi A, Tanimoto K, Suei Y, Otani K, Wadamoto M, Akagawa Y, et al. Observer agreement in the assessment of mandibular trabecular bone pattern from panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1997;26:90–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Altman DG. Practical statistic for medical research. 1st ed. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991. p. 403–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ulm C, Tepper G. Structure of atrophic alveolar bone. In: Georg W, editor. Implants in qualitatively compromised bone. London: Quintessence; 2004. p. 29–31.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999. p. 73–118.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nanci A, Whitson SW, Blanco P. Bone. In: Nanci A, editor. Ten Cate’s oral histology, development, structure, and function. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2003. p. 111–44.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neukam FW, Kloss FR. Compromised jawbone quantity and its influence on oral implant placement. In: Zarb G, Lekholm U, Albrektsson T, Tenenbaum H, editors. Aging, osteoporosis and dental implants. Chicago: Quintessence; 2002. p. 67–84.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mundy GR. Bone resorbing cells. In: Favus MJ, editor. Primer on metabolic bone diseases and disorders of mineral metabolism. 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press; 1993. p. 25–32.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prentice A, Schoenmakers I, Laskey MA, de Bono S, Ginty F, Goldberg GR. Nutrition and bone growth and development. Proc Nutr Soc. 2006;65(4):348–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Menik Priaminiarti
    • 3
  • Budi Utomo
    • 1
  • R. Susworo
    • 2
  • Hanna Bachtiar Iskandar
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Population and Biostatistics, Faculty of Public HealthUniversity of IndonesiaJakartaIndonesia
  2. 2.Department of Radiotherapy, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of IndonesiaJakartaIndonesia
  3. 3.Department of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of DentistryUniversity of IndonesiaJakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations