Skip to main content

Table 3 Implant-to-mandibular canal dimensions assessed by criterion method and each of the PAN equations

From: Panoramic prediction equations to estimate implant- to-mandibular canal dimensions in the mandibular posterior region: implications for dental implant treatment

Tooth Region

Mean (mm)

95 % CI for the mean

Correlationa(r)

Mean bias (mm)

Pure error (mm)

1. Premolar (n = 35)

  Criterion method (CBCT)

2.9 ± 1.5

2.35–3.40

   

  PAN equation

2.9 ± 1.2

2.52–3.32

0.737

− 0.04 ± 1.03

0.00

2. Premolar (n = 34)

  Criterion method (CBCT)

3.1 ± 1.8

2.48–3.70

   

  PAN equation

2.8 ± 1.2

2.37–3.21

0.818

0.30 ± 1.04

0.29

1. Molar (n = 43)

  Criterion method (CBCT)

2.5 ± 2.1

1.90–3.16

   

  PAN equation

2.8 ± 1.7

2.26–3.29

0.885

− 0.26 ± 0.99

1.01

2. Molar (n = 36)

  Criterion method (CBCT)

3.2 ± 1.5

2.70–3.70

   

  PAN equation

3.1 ± 1.1

2.75–3.47

0.693

0.06 ± 1.09

1.11

  1. CBCT cone-beam computed tomography; PAN panoramic radiography; P premolar; M molar; a correlation between criterion method and assessments made by each of the prediction equations