Head positioning in a cone beam computed tomography unit and the effect on accuracy of the three-dimensional surface mode.

Head position during cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination can easily deviate from the ideal, which may affect the accuracy of the segmented three-dimensional (3D) model. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of head positioning on the accuracy of the 3D model. A human dry skull was positioned at predetermined orientations in a CBCT scanner and scanned in multiple orientations and voxel sizes. The resulting 3D surface models were superimposed over those derived from the reproducible centered positioned skull with 0° inclination. Color mapping and analysis of the differences expressed by the root mean square error (RMSE) were performed. The RMSE for each orientation using the 0.3 mm voxel ranged from 0.31 to 0.87 mm for the whole maxillofacial region, from 0.44 to 0.91 mm in the maxilla, and from 0.31 to 0.72 mm in the mandible. For the 0.4 mm voxel, the RMSE ranged from 0.47 to 0.86 mm for the whole maxillofacial region, from 0.60 to 0.96 mm in the maxilla, and from 0.56 to 0.86 mm in the mandible. The maxilla showed a slightly higher deviation than the mandible in both voxel groups. It can be concluded that the head position affects the accuracy of the segmented 3D model, but the inaccuracy does not exceed clinically relevant levels.

Treatment of periodontal endosseous defects with platelet-rich plasma alone or in combination with demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft: a comparative clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) alone or combined with other regenerative materials was previously studied in human periodontal endosseous defects. There are no sufficient data evaluating to what extent the addition of demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) to PRP may enhance the effectiveness of PRP. The aim of this randomized, double-masked, controlled clinical trial was to compare the effectiveness of autologous PRP alone to PRP + DFDBA in periodontal endosseous defects. METHODS: Twenty-four proximal endosseous defects in 24 patients with severe chronic periodontitis were randomly treated with PRP alone or in combination with DFDBA. The final evaluation at 6 months was based on clinical and radiographic parameters. Subtraction radiography was used. The primary outcome variable was clinical attachment level (CAL). RESULTS: The two treatment groups were initially comparable (mean CAL: 8.67 +/- 2.19 mm for PRP + DFDBA and 8.25 +/- 1.96 mm for PRP). Both treatments achieved statistically significant and similar CAL gain (3.08 +/- 1.17 mm for PRP + DFDBA and 3.08 +/- 0.95 mm for PRP), probing depth, defect depth, and area surface reduction. The percentage of defect fill did not significantly differ between the two treatments. There was a non-significant trend to greater defect fill (45.42% versus 41.29%), defect depth (54.05% versus 49.52%), and area surface (58.43% versus 52.16%) reduction with the graft. In both groups, 66.66% of the defects gained > or =3 mm of CAL. CONCLUSION: Within its limits, this study demonstrates that both PRP and PRP combined with DFDBA resulted in significant clinical and radiographic improvement in human periodontal endosseous defects at 6 months, and the addition of DFDBA to PRP did not significantly enhance the treatment outcome.

Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography.

OBJECTIVES: (a) To measure the absorbed radiation doses at 16 anatomical sites of a Rando phantom and (b) to calculate the effective doses including and excluding the salivary gland doses in panoramic radiography using a conventional and a digital panoramic device. STUDY DESIGN: Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100) were placed at 16 sites in a Rando phantom, using a conventional, Planmeca Promax and a digital, Planmeca PM2002CC Proline 2000 (Planmeca Oy, 00880 Helsinki, Finland) panoramic device for panoramic radiography. During conventional radiography the selected exposure settings were 66 kVp, 6 mA and 16s, while during digital radiography two combinations were selected 60 kVp, 4 mA, 18 s and 66 kVp, 8 mA, 18s with and without image processing function. The dosimeters were annealed in a PTW-TLDO Harshaw oven. TLD energy response was studied using RQN beam narrow series at GAEC's Secondary Standard Calibration Laboratory. The reader used was a Harshaw, 4500. Effective dose was estimated according to ICRP(60) report (E(ICRP60)). An additional estimation of the effective dose was accomplished including the doses of the salivary glands (E(SAL)). A Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The effective dose, according to ICRP report (E(ICRP60)) in conventional panoramic radiography was 17 microSv and E(SAL) was 26 microSv. The respective values in digital panoramic radiography were E(ICRP60)=23 microSv and E(SAL)=38 microSv; while using the lowest possible radiographic settings E(ICRP60) was 8 microSv and E(SAL) was 12 microSv. CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose reduction in digital panoramic radiography can be achieved, if the lowest possible radiographic settings are used.