Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to alveolar crest distance measurements on intraoral radiographs.

A. CEJ–alveolar crest distance measurements for maxillary right and left central incisors on periapical radiographs. B. CEJ–alveolar crest distance measurements for maxillary and mandibular first premolars and first molars on bitewing radiographs. The units of measurement are displayed in mm.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to alveolar crest distance measurements on CBCT-reconstructed panoramic radiographs.

A. focal trough was created in the center of the maxillary arch to generate a panoramic projection tailored to the maxilla. CEJ–alveolar crest distances for the maxillary central incisor, canine, first premolar, and first molar were measured on the CBCT-derived panoramic radiograph. B. A focal trough was created in the center of the mandibular arch to generate a panoramic projection tailored to the mandible. CEJ–alveolar crest distances for the mandibular central incisor, canine, first premolar, and first molar were measured on the CBCT-derived panoramic radiograph. The units of measurement are displayed in mm.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Maxillary and mandibular central incisor CAL, PA and CBCT periodontal assessment.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Maxillary and mandibular canine CAL, PA and CBCT periodontal assessment.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Maxillary and mandibular first premolar CAL, BW and CBCT periodontal assessment.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Maxillary and mandibular first molar CAL, BW and CBCT periodontal assessment.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Summary of correlation analysis.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 3.

Representative Bland Altman analysis of the mesial surface of the maxillary right central incisor.

The plots illustrate comparisons between A. CAL and PA, B. PA and CBCT, and C. CBCT and CAL. The means were close to 0, with most data points randomly scattered around the means and falling within the limits of agreement (95% CI), indicating good agreement among the evaluation methods.

More »

Fig 3 Expand