Cross-sectional views from conventional or computed tomography (CT) offer the extent of bone and architectural information in the third dimension, which greatly enhances the pre-treatment planning for implant placement. However, proprietary software for CT imaging display is not available in all practices, and universal software for viewing digital tomograms acquired from different digital systems is not widely accessible. Objective: This study aimed to assess preferences amongst periodontists in selecting an output media to display tomographic images. The media studied were film-printout, glossy paper-printout, and PDF digital format. Methods: A 2-page questionnaire was mailed to 31 periodontists in the Piedmont area of North Carolina along with tomographic samples using three media. The questionnaire solicited demographic data, prior experience with tomography, background with computer and imaging technology and perception and preference for the media in question. The feedback was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using descriptive statistics and ANOVA analyses. Results: While twelve participants were excluded from the study as no response was received, data from the remaining 73.68% showed statistically significant differences in identifying anatomical structures of interest, but not in image viewing and archiving. There was no significant difference between film and paper printouts. Conclusion: Film-printout and glossy paper-printout are not statistically different in regarding the tomographic images. PDF digital format could be useful with few disadvantages.