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