{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019438444924406047, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009359251259899209, 'mean_word_length': 5.405529953917051, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[A comparison between endoral radiography and electronic magnification of digital orthopantomography].

We compared the electronic magnifications obtained from digital panoramic radiographs with intraoral radiographs with a new high resolution film. Fifty-two patients were submitted to both examinations--76 comparative studies and 217 teeth studied in all. The two techniques appeared substantially comparable in terms of diagnostic effectiveness. The measurement of the alveolar ridge was strictly equivalent for the two examinations (< 1 mm disagreement in 80% of cases). The profile of lamina dura and the image of the radicular canal were better depicted with intraoral films. A useful advantage offered by digital images was the possibility of recognizing the soft tissues. In dental caries intraoral films was more effective than digital images and were correctly depicted small carious cavities (< 2 mm depth, 87 vs 74%). Digital panoramic radiography can be considered a promising alternative to panoramic film. Its electronic magnification may be a valuable diagnostic complement to intraoral films for the study of periodontal disease, but it cannot replace intraoral films for the assessment of fine dental details, small caries in particular. The new intraoral film was substantially equivalent to digital images for the assessment of bone lesions and of periodontal disease.