Implant-to-root dimensions projected by panoramic radiographs inthe maxillary canine-premolar region: implications for dental implant treatment

Table 5 Implant-to-root dimensions assessed by criterion method and each of the PAN equations (n = 418)

Maxillary region	Mean (mm)	95% CI for the mean (mm)	ANOVA^a (P)	Correlation^b (r)	Mean bias (mm)	Pure error (mm)
Cen Inc–Lat Inc (n = 85)
Criterion method (CBCT)	1.3 ± 0.7	1.16–1.47
PAN equation	1.4 ± 0.4	1.27–1.46	0.564	0.568	− 0.05 ± 0.60	0.16
Lat Inc–Canine (n = 96)
Criterion method (CBCT)	1.9 ± 0.8	1.73–2.07
PAN equation	1.9 ± 0.6	1.82–2.06	0.744	0.612	− 0.03 ± 0.66	0.16
Canine–1. Prem (n = 161)
Criterion method (CBCT)	1.8 ± 1.0	1.67–1.99
PAN equation	1.7 ± .05	1.61–1.77	0.109	0.503	0.14 ± 0.88	0.45
1. Prem–2. Prem (n = 76)
Criterion method (CBCT)	1.8 ± 1.2	1.55–2.11
PAN equation	2.0 ± 0.6	1.90–2.15	0.207	0.674	− 0.20 ± 0.95	0.38

CBCT cone-beam computed tomography, PAN panoramic radiography, Cen central, Lat lateral, Inc incisor, Prem premolar, ANOVA analysis of variance, P probability of type I error
^aComparison of means between criterion method and assessments made by each of the prediction equations, r regression coefficient
^bCorrelation between criterion method and assessments made by each of the prediction equations

ISSN: 1471-2342