Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2026
Digital Hybrid Model Preparation for Virtual Planning of Reconstructive Dentoalveolar Surgical Procedures
Published on: August 5, 2021
Comparison of simulated periodontal bone defect depth measured in digital radiographs in dedicated and non-dedicated
G Scaf1, C E Sakakura, P F D Kalil
1Department of Oral Diagnosis and Surgery, Araraquara Dental School, State of São Paulo University, Unesp, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil. scaf@foar.unesp.br
Objectives:
To compare simulated periodontal bone defect depth measured in digital radiographs with dedicated and non-dedicated software systems and to compare the depth measurements from each program with the measurements in dry mandibles.
Methods:
Forty periodontal bone defects were created at the proximal area of the first premolar in dry pig mandibles. Measurements of the defects were performed with a periodontal probe in the dry mandible. Periapical digital radiographs of the defects were recorded using the Schick sensor in a standardized exposure setting. All images were read using a Schick dedicated software system (CDR DICOM for Windows v.3.5), and three commonly available non-dedicated software systems (Vix Win 2000 v.1.2; Adobe Photoshop 7.0 and Image Tool 3.0). The defects were measured three times in each image and a consensus was reached among three examiners using the four software systems. The difference between the radiographic measurements was analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and by comparing the measurements from each software system with the dry mandibles measurements using Student's t-test.
Results:
The mean values of the bone defects measured in the radiographs were 5.07 mm, 5.06 mm, 5.01 mm and 5.11 mm for CDR Digital Image and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) for Windows, Vix Win, Adobe Photoshop, and Image Tool, respectively, and 6.67 mm for the dry mandible. The means of the measurements performed in the four software systems were not significantly different, ANOVA (P = 0.958). A significant underestimation of defect depth was obtained when we compared the mean depths from each software system with the dry mandible measurements (t-test; P approximately equal to 0.000).
Conclusions:
The periodontal bone defect measurements in dedicated and in three non-dedicated software systems were not significantly different, but they all underestimated the measurements when compared with the measurements obtained in the dry mandibles.
