Abstract
Introduction: Digital radiography can take accurate measurements. In implant dentistry, intraoral periapical (PA), bite-wing (BW) and panoramic (OPG) radiographs are being used, although it had limitations of distortion. This research aims to assess the accuracy of digital radiography in measuring dental implants and to evaluate the SIDEXIS software’s reliability in measuring their dimensions.Materials and Methods: Over 192 implants from 316 radiographs were selected. All radiographs were analyzed using SIDEXIS software. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.Results: Statistically significant differences (P < 0.5) between the actual heights and widths compared to the measured radiographic dimensions. Over all the distortion was greatest in OPGs. The magnifications were 2.48mm in height and 0.82mm in width for OPGS, 0.17mm in width for BWs while in PAs it was 1.37mm in height and 0.156mm in width. The magnification was more in maxilla for PAs and OPGs. Anteriorly the PAs had the greatest magnification (2.16mm), and OPGs had the greatest at (3.03mm) in height posteriorly.Conclusion: Digital OPG, PA and Bitewing radiographs are reliable for performing dimensions linear measurements for implants, and PAs have the highest precision. Additionally, SIDEXIS software provided accurate results and can be considered a reliable method for implants’ assessment. Â
Highlights
This study aimed to assess the accuracy of digital radiography in measuring dental implants and to evaluate the SIDEXIS software’s reliability in measuring their vertical and horizontal dimensions
Over 19 2implants from 316 radiographs distributed between PAs, BWs and OPGs were analyzed. of these, 9 6were placed in the maxilla and 96 implants were placed in the mandible
The width and length of the dental implants were measured on digital PA, BW, and OPG radiographs using the SIDEXIS XG Software and were compared to the actual sizes of these implants
Summary
(Machtei, Zigdon et al 2010) measured the distance from the apex of a pilot drill to the roof of the inferior alveolar canal on a digital OPG and compared it with the readings of an ultrasonic device used to measure the distance from the bottom of the osteotome preparation to the canal They found a strong and highly significant correlation between the two measurement methods. (Park 2010) reported that the mean magnification of mandibular implants using digital OPGs in the premolar region and the molar region was 1.31 and 1.27 respectively and concluded that to evaluate the available bone height for posterior mandibular implants, digital OPGs were sufficiently accurate. The radiographs along with proper clinical examination can be sufficient to determine the size and position of implants if distortion is accounted for (Kayal 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
