International Scholarly Research Notices

Research Article

Are Panoramic Radiographs Reliable to Diagnose Mild Alveolar Bone Resorption?

Table 1

Distribution of mean measured distances according to the type of radiograph.
Type of radiographBone loss (in millimeters)
AbsentModerateAdvanced
Conventional periapical 1 . 7 0 ± 0 . 4 8 * 3 . 7 8 ± 0 . 8 5 7 . 1 0 ± 1 . 2 8
Digitized periapical 1 . 7 0 ± 0 . 4 5 ∂ 3 . 7 6 ± 0 . 8 4 7 . 2 0 ± 1 . 5 0
Conventional bitewing 1 . 9 0 ± 0 . 5 6 3 . 5 7 ± 0 . 9 6 6 . 6 0 ± 1 . 6 5
Digitized bitewing 1 . 7 8 ± 0 . 3 7 † 3 . 6 4 ± 1 . 0 2 6 . 6 0 ± 1 . 7 5
Conventional panoramic 2 . 5 0 ± 0 . 8 4 * 3 . 8 9 ± 1 . 2 8 8 . 0 0 ± 2 . 3 0
Digitized panoramic 2 . 5 9 ± 0 . 8 9 ∂† 3 . 9 8 ± 1 . 1 8 8 . 0 0 ± 2 . 3 0
*Significant difference between conventional periapical and panoramic radiographs ( 𝑃 = . 0 3 ).
∂Significant difference between digitized periapical and panoramic radiographs ( 𝑃 = . 0 1 ).
†Significant difference between digitized bitewing and panoramic radiographs ( 𝑃 = . 0 2 ).