Abstract
During reading of radiographs one must always take into consideration that they are only a two-dimensional shadow of three-dimensional structures. Owing to that a single radiograph is not enough to fully describe shape and localisation of a pathological lesion as it contains only partial information on examined objects. However in dentomaxillofacial radiography it is not always feasible due to complicated anatomy of examined structures as well as it is impossible to place an image receptor between teeth, only on their buccal, lingual or occlusal surfaces. In practice imaging diagnostics is often limited to a periapical or bitewing radiograph, or a panoramic radiograph. Systematic approach to reading and reporting of a diagnostic imaging examination is crucial.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Suggested Reading
Carter L, Farman AG, Geist J, Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C, Nair MK, Hildebolt CF, Tyndall D, Shrout M, American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology executive opinion statement on performing and interpreting diagnostic cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2008;106(4):561–2.
Cremonesi I, Nucci C, D'Alessandro G, Alkhamis N, Marchionni S, Piana G. X-linked hypophosphatemic rickets: enamel abnormalities and oral clinical findings. Scanning. 2014;36(4):456–61.
European Society of Radiology (ESR). Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines form the European Society of Radiology. Insights Imaging. 2011;2:93–6.
Gjørup H, Beck-Nielsen SS, Haubek D. Craniofacial and dental characteristics of patients with vitamin-D-dependent rickets type 1A compared to controls and patients with X-linked hypophosphatemia. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(2):745–55.
Horner K, Barry S, Dave M, Dixon C, Littlewood A, Pang CL, Sengupta A, Srinivasan V. Diagnostic efficacy of cone beam computed tomography in paediatric dentistry: a systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00504-x.
Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):88.
Meyer KA, Bancroft LW, Dietrich TJ, Kransdorf MJ, Peterson JJ. Imaging characteristics of benign, malignant and infectious jaw lesions: a pictorial review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:23–32.
Miles DA, Danforth RA. Cone beam computed tomography: from capture to reporting. Dent Clin N Am. 2014;58(3):ix–x.
More CB, Das S, Gupta S, Bhavsar K. Mandibular adenomatoid odontogenic tumor: radiographic and pathologic correlation. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2013;4(2):457–62.
Mupparapu M, Creanga AG, Singer SR. Interpretation of cone beam computed tomography volumetric data: how to report findings. Quintessence Int. 2017;48(9):733–41.
Patel S, Durack C, Abella F, Shemesh H, Roig M, Lemberg K. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics—a review. Int Endod J. 2015;48(1):3–15.
Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(Suppl 1):46–60.
Whaites E, Drage N. Essentials of dental radiography and radiology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2013.
White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology. Principles and interpretation. St Louis: Mosby; 2014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rozylo-Kalinowska, I. (2020). Analysis of Dental Radiographs and CBCT Studies. In: Imaging Techniques in Dental Radiology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41372-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41372-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41371-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41372-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)