Table 4.
Image prescriptions for Case 1, the atrophic edentulous ridge
| 1st selection | 2nd selection | 3rd selection | 4th selection |
| PAN+ n = 45 | CBCT+ n = 9 | ||
| 33.33% | 6.7% | ||
| PA+ n = 8 | PA n = 1 | ||
| 6.0% | 0.7% | ||
| TS n = 1 | |||
| 0.7% | |||
| PA n = 2 | PA+ n1 | ||
| 1.5% | 0.7% | ||
| CBCT n = 2 | |||
| 1.5% | |||
| LCeph n = 1 | |||
| 0.7% | |||
| TS n = 1 | |||
| 0.7% | |||
| PAN n = 29 | PA+ n = 2 | TS n = 1 | CBCT n = 1 |
| 21.48% | 1.5% | 0.7% | 0.7% |
| PA n = 2 | CBCT+ n = 1 | ||
| 1.5% | 0.7% | ||
| PAN+ n = 3 | |||
| 2.2% | |||
| SCAN n = 1 | |||
| 0.7% | |||
| MCT+ n = 1 | |||
| 0.7% | |||
| CBCT n = 1 | |||
| 0.7% | |||
| CBCT+ n = 4 | |||
| 0.7% | |||
| CBCT+ n = 36 | PA+ n = 4 | Scanora n = 1 | OCC n = 1 |
| 26.7% | 3.0% | 0.7% | 0.7% |
| CBCT n = 12 | |||
| 8.9% | |||
| MCT+ n = 5 | |||
| 3.7% | |||
| NoRad n = 2 | |||
| 1.5% | |||
| PA+ n = 2 | PAN+ n = 2 | ||
| 1.5% | 1.5% | ||
| LCeph n = 1 | PAN n = 1 | ||
| 0.7% | 0.7% | ||
| MCT n = 1 | |||
| 0.7% | |||
| SCAN n = 1 | MCT+ n = 1 | ||
| 0.7% | 0.7% | ||
| TS n = 1 | PAN+ n = 1 | CBCT+ n = 1 | |
| 0.7% | 0.7% | 0.7% |
CBCT, cone beam CT examination; CBCT+, cone beam CT examination with a radiographic guide using radio-opaque markers at the proposed implant sites; LCeph, lateral cephalometric view; MCT, medical (multislice) CT examination; MCT+, medical CT examination with a radiographic guide using radio-opaque markers at the proposed implant sites; NoRad, no image was prescribed; OCC, an occlusal radiograph selected by respondents in the free text section; PA, conventional periapical views of the proposed implant sites; PA+, conventional periapical views with a radiographic guide using 5 mm ball bearings at the proposed implant sites; PAN, panoramic radiograph; PAN+, panoramic radiograph with a radiographic guide using 5 mm ball bearings at the proposed implant sites; SCAN, conventional tomograms at the proposed implant sites; TS, transymphyseal view.