A methodological approach to standardize and control the quality of the position and alignment of lamina implants on two-dimensional radiographs

  • Giovanni Battista Menchini-Fabris
  • Ugo Covani
  • Paolo TotiEmail author
  • Simone Marconcini
  • Antonio Barone
  • Ranieri Martuscelli
Technical Report



We sought to validate a new method to detect the degree of correlation between simulated and real tilted blade implants as they appear on a single two-dimensional radiograph.


The angular correction factor (CF^) was defined as the coupling of two subsequent angle transformations, a set of five angular values describing the theoretical radiographic appearance of the blade implant: (1) three consecutive rotations about the axes of the blade (\(\varphi\), θ, and ψ, standing for pitch, roll, and yaw, respectively) to represent the polarization directions; (2) a two-dimensional projection defined by two angles (λ and \(\phi\), respectively, longitude and latitude) to represent the vector of the X-ray beam intersecting the detector plate. Data of patients who received fixed prostheses supported by blade-form implants were employed to calculate a dimensional correction factor (CF°), a specific length through the major axis. The simulation of a distorted radiograph of a blade positioned in space was compared with the real radiograph. Differences in the angular measurements served as an initial test to assess the effectiveness of the method.


In the acquired sets of periapical radiographs, mean misalignments of + 3.58° in longitude and − 0.04° in latitude were registered. The following variations were detected during the accuracy testing: the absolute error was 0.1 ± 7.5° for angle \(\varphi\); 2.4 ± 6.7° for angle θ; − 1.0 ± 3.7° for angle ψ; 4.5 ± 8.6° for angle λ; and 2.0 ± 9.3° for angle \(\phi\). The linear dependence between CF° and CF^ was estimated by a robust linear regression: slope + 0.991, intercept + 0.007, and adjusted R2 0.992.


This a posteriori analysis introduces the explicit trigonometric equations of the theoretical standard (CF^) used to describe the blade implant radiographic position and misalignment on two-dimensional radiographs.


Tissue–implant interactions Dental digital radiography Algorithms Radiographic image interpretation Blade-form implant 



The present study was supported in part by the Tuscan Stomatologic Institute.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Giovanni Battista Menchini-Fabris, Ugo Covani, Paolo Toti, Simone Marconcini, Antonio Barone, and Ranieri Martuscelli declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and animal rights statement

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Schnitman PA, Shulman LB. Recommendations of the consensus development conference on dental implants. J Am Dent Assoc. 1979;98:373–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1:11–25.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants, 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-screw and hollow-cylinder implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1990;1:33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tyndall DAI, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;89:630–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Calibration of radiographs by a reference metal ball affects preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Investig. 2009;13:375–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sewerin IP. Estimation of angulation of Branemark titanium fixtures from radiographic thread images. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991;2:20–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mol A, Dunn SM. The performance of projective standardization for digital subtraction radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2003;96:373–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu JC, Huang JN, Zhao SF, Xu XJ, Zhang JC, Xia B, et al. Use of a simple intraoral instrument to standardize film alignment and improve image reproducibility. Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2005;100:99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schulze RKW. Pose determination of a cylindrical (dental) implant in three dimensions from a single two-dimensional radiograph. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Toti P, Barone A, Marconcini S, Menchini-Fabris GB, Martuscelli R, Covani U. Pose determination of a blade implant in three dimensions from a single two-dimensional radiograph. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;11:20170258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barone A, Toti P, Menchini-Fabris GB, Derchi G, Marconcini S, Covani U. Extra oral digital scanning and imaging superimposition for volume analysis of bone remodeling after tooth extraction with and without 2 types of particulate porcine mineral insertion: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:750–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strecha J, Jurkovic R, Siebert T, Prachar P, Bartakova S. Fixed bicortical screw and blade implants as a non-standard solution to an edentulous (toothless) mandible. Int J Oral Sci. 2010;2:105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fernandez-Formoso N, Rilo B, Mora MJ, Martinez-Silva I, Santana U. A paralleling technique modification to determine the bone crest level around dental implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:385–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schulze RKW, d’Hoedt B. A method to calculate angular disparities between object and receptor in paralleling technique. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31:32–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schulze RK, Weinheimer O, Brullmann DD, Roder F, d’Hoedt B, Schoemer E. Software for automated application of a reference-based method for a posteriori determination of the effective radiographic imaging geometry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34:205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Study Centre for Multidisciplinary Regenerative ResearchUniversity of Rome “G. Marconi”RomeItaly
  2. 2.San Rossore Dental UnitSan Rossore Private HospitalPisaItaly
  3. 3.Tuscan Dental InstituteFortis Dental CenterForte dei MarmiItaly
  4. 4.Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular and Critical Area PathologyUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  5. 5.Unit of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of GenevaGeneve 4Switzerland
  6. 6.Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, School of Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations