Method: 10 patients were randomly selected and all identification/planning data removed. A single operator then examined the 2 dimensional panoramic view and a diagnostic observation was determined for each tooth or site. The same operator then reviewed each tooth or site on the sectional views and logged using a binary system any differences in the diagnostic observation.
Result: The results show that 47% of sites examined in 3D have a different diagnostic observation to those examined in 2D.
Conclusion: The quality of the images often provides additional radiographic information that is not readily apparent from conventional 2D imaging. This suggests that the use of CBCT offers additional value as a special investigation for other specialities in dentistry, not solely for implantology.