DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thunthy, K. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thunthy, K. H.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 29, Issue 2 65-69, Copyright © 2000 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Interrelationship between cross-sectional and sagittal imaging in computer-assisted dental implant tomography

K. H. Thunthy
Department of Oral Diagnosis, Medicine and Radiology, School of Dentistry, Louisiana State University, 110 Florida Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, LA 70119-2799, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To determine what changes may occur in computer-assisted dental tomography to cross-sectional and sagittal slices when the positions of one or both slices are adjusted. METHODS: A human skull with a ball bearing attached to the mandibular first molar was positioned off-centre in a CommCAT (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, PA, USA) tomographic machine. An occlusal projection of the mandibular dental arch was scanned into the computer. Correction measurements obtained from scout cross-sectional and sagittal slices were used to 'customize' cross-sectional and sagittal slices simultaneously and also individually. RESULTS: The resulting changes in position and blur of the ball bearing were analysed. When simultaneously and correctly customized, the resultant slices were at the correct locations with a sharp image of the marker. When the sagittal slice only was adjusted, the blur of the marker changed, but its position remained unchanged; at the same time, the blur of the marker in the cross-sectional slice remained unchanged, but its position changed. When the cross-sectional slice only was adjusted, the blur changed, but its position remained unchanged; at the same time, the blur of the marker in the sagittal slice remained unchanged, but its position changed. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for dentists evaluating tomograms for implant placement to be aware that with the CommCAT tomographic machine an interrelationship exists between cross-sectional and sagittal slices and that adjustment in one type of slice produces changes in either the blur or position of the marker in the adjusted and unadjusted slices.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2000 by the British Institute of Radiology.