***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE To compare panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size for three implant systems ( Brånemark , Straumann ( ® ) , 3i ) . MATERIAL AND METHODS Presurgical panoramic ( Pan ) and cross-sectional tomograms ( Tomo ) of 121 implant sites in 121 patients scheduled for single-tooth implant treatment were recorded ; in 70 of the Pans ( Pan-B ) , a metal ball was placed in the edentulous area . By means of dedicated software , an implant with subjectively determined proper dimensions for the respective site was outlined by manually placing four reference points in each image by three observers . Additionally , four reference points corresponding to the margins of the metal ball were manually placed in Pan-Bs . The length and width of the implant were calculated after calibration to the reference ball ( true magnification ) in Pan-Bs and to a " st and ard " calibration method in all images ( magnification factor 1.25 in Pans and 1.7 in Tomos ) . Based on the corrected dimensions , the nearest , smaller implant size was selected among those available in each of the three implant systems . RESULTS When comparing Pans with Tomos , selected implant size differed in on average 89 % of the cases . The length differed in 69 % and the width in 66 % . Implants planned on Tomos were longer than those planned on Pans in 47 % and narrower in 30 % ( < 10 % in posterior regions ) . The Straumann ( ® ) system , with the smallest range of available implant sizes was significantly less affected by the radiographic method compared with the other two systems . CONCLUSION The selected implant size differed considerably when planned on panoramic or cross-sectional tomographs OBJECTIVE To investigate whether cross-section imaging influences the planning and therapy of st and ard implant cases in the posterior m and ible . MATERIAL AND METHODS In a prospect i ve study conducted over 16 months , the planned treatment ( st and ard implant therapy without bone augmentation procedures in the premolar and molar regions of the m and ible ) was compared with the postoperative result in 50 r and omly selected patients .  Clinical examinations and panoramic radiographs were performed pre- and postoperatively , whereas cross-sectional tomography was performed only preoperatively . RESULTS The vertical magnification factor in the panoramic radiographs was very constant pre- and postoperatively with 1 : 1.27 and in the spiral tomograms with 1 : 1.52 . In 11 of 77 implant sites , the m and ibular canal could not be evaluated in the spiral tomograms . The additional information from cross-sectional spiral tomography did not influence the original planning in 74 of 77 ( 96.1 % ) implant sites . Based on the postoperative panoramic radiograph , the average distance from the tip of the implants to the m and ibular canal was 3.04+/-2.06 mm . In two cases ( 2.6 % ) , transient postoperative altered tactile sensation of the mental nerve was found . CONCLUSION The information from preoperative cross-sectional spiral tomography has minor impact on treatment planning in st and ard implant cases in m and ibular premolar and molar regions . The clinical examination provides sufficient information for selecting implant diameter and the panoramic radiograph provides sufficient information for implant length selection PURPOSE To establish a basis for weighing the potential diagnostic and therapeutic benefits of three-dimensional cone-beam ( CB ) data sets in contrast to digital orthopantomography ( OPG ) and computerized tomography ( CT ) in implant dentistry . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Twenty-seven patients requiring implant surgery received a single presurgical CB scan .  A follow-up digital OPG was taken within a maximal postsurgical period of 2 weeks . For comparison purpose s , a control group of 29 patients receiving CT as well as CB diagnosis was analyzed . Image quality of the different modalities was ranked retrospectively by five experienced examiners ( from excellent to insufficient ) for up to 10 defined criteria , including general image quality and several specific structures . The results were analyzed statistically , and interobserver agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients ( ICCs ) . RESULTS The median rating for all investigated criteria was good for CB imaging and between good and insufficient for OPG in the dental implant group . Except for general image quality , statistical analysis showed that CB imaging was significantly superior to  OPG imaging for all investigated anatomic structures . With a few exceptions , all investigated anatomic structures in CT and CB imaging were rated excellent in the control group . No significant difference between CT and CB imaging was detected in the control group for all investigated criteria . With a few exceptions , ICCs were higher for CB images than for OPG . In the control group , ICCs for CT and CB images were similar , with a few exceptions . CONCLUSION The results of the present study confirm superior radiographic visualization for all important high-contrast structures in presurgical implant dentistry assessment for CB imaging in contrast to OPG and a CT-like degree of information for high-contrast structures in CB data sets . Clinical ly , however , the elevated radiation dosages transmitted by CB imaging must be taken into account 
    Output:
    
Notwithst and ing , it may be tentatively inferred that cross-sectional imaging has a therapeutic impact in the more challenging cases .
In terms of impact , this review has found no evidence to support any specific imaging modality when planning dental implant placement in any region of the mouth .