Modified bisecting angle technique in eliminating

superimposition over apices of maxillary molars

Anshuman

zygomatic

Jamdade

Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Dental College and Hospital, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
India
Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication

10-Oct-2014

Abstract
Background: Image superimposition is a part and parcel of two-dimensional radiography. However, some
overlappings are a result of radiographic technique itself. The technique induced superimposition of zygomatic
buttress on apices of maxillary molars is common in bisecting angle technique (BAT), which affects the endodontic
performance. Certain alterations were carried out in BAT to remove these undiagnostic shadows. The aim of this
study was to compare two techniques of periapical radiography namely, BAT and modified BAT (MBAT) in
preventing
zygomatic
superimposition
over
apices
of
maxillary
molars.
Materials and Methods: A total of 62 patients requiring endodontic treatment for at least one maxillary molar were
recruited in this cross-sectional study. One tooth from every patient was subjected for two periapical radiographs,
one with each BAT and MBAT respectively giving a total of 124 radiographs. Each radiograph was recorded as
acceptable or unacceptable, based on zygomatic superimposition and different technical aspects. Chi-square test
was used for data analysis. The kappa statistic was used to test intra-observer reliability.
Results: With MBAT, the acceptability was 82.3% (n = 51) compared with 43.5% (n = 27) when BAT was
employed. The statistically significant difference was found between these two techniques (P = 0.000). The level of
agreement between two oral radiologists in their interpretation was high (kappa index = 0.897).
Conclusion: Modified BAT was more accurate for periapical radiography of maxillary molars in preventing
zygomatic superimposition and related technical errors than BAT.

Keywords: Bisecting angle technique, modified bisecting angle technique, paralleling

technique, vertical angulation
How to cite this article:
Jamdade AS. Modified bisecting angle technique in eliminating zygomatic superimposition over apices of maxillary
molars. Indian J Dent Res 2014;25:521-6

How to cite this URL:

Jamdade AS. Modified bisecting angle technique in eliminating zygomatic superimposition over apices of maxillary
molars. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2014 [cited 2015 May 9];25:521-6. Available
from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2014/25/4/521/142560
Radiographs are considered as third eye to the dentist so is an integral aid in endodontic. Intra-oral periapical
radiograph shows 2-4 teeth and the periodontal bone. [1] Intra-oral periapical radiographic techniques despite
having limitations and disadvantages have yet not been replaced by superior method. Intra-oral periapical
radiography could be performed either by bisecting angle technique (BAT) or paralleling technique (PT). [2] Even
though having inherent image distortion, BAT is still popular in dental practice because of its greater flexibility. PT
is a standardized method and should always be preferred when dimensional accuracy and reproducibility is
paramount.
Ideally, BAT should be employed for patients unable to accommodate and tolerate the positioning of the PT. The
radiographic superimposition of apical anatomical structures especially zygomatic buttress on roots of maxillary
molars is common in BAT which affects the outcome of dental therapy. Angle reduction modification was carried
out in BAT to minimize such image superimposition. This article describes modified BAT (MBAT) and its
comparison with BAT in preventing zygomatic superimposition on periapical radiographs of maxillary molars.

Materials and methods

In this cross-sectional comparative study, a total of 62 patients requiring root canal treatment of at least one
maxillary molar (either first or second) were randomly recruited. The sample consisted of 33 males (53.2%) and 29
females (46.8%), aged 15-52 (mean 29.11) years. Patients with skull abnormalities and incomplete root apex were
not selected. A total of 124 periapical radiographs were taken with BAT and MBAT, from 62 maxillary molars (62
radiographs from each technique). Each patient was subjected for two radiographs on the same tooth, one by
each technique. This study followed the ethical standards of the committee on human experimentation of the
institution.
All
patients
gave
informed
written
consent
to
participate
in
this
study.
Radiographic

technique

The basic principle of MBAT is same as the conventional technique of bisecting the angle, that is, Cieszynski's rule
of isometry. The angle formed between the plane of the film and the long axis of the tooth is mentally bisected. The
central rays of the beam are at right angle to this imaginary bisector [Figure 1]. Using the geometrical principle of
isometric triangles, the actual length of the tooth will be equal to its image length. The main differences between
MBAT and BAT are film position and vertical angulation.

Figure 1: In bisecting angle technique, vertical angulation is not low

enough to pass between root apices and zygomatic buttress
Click here to view

1.

Positioning of the patient is same as in BAT, that is, patient's head should be upright with sagittal plane
vertical and occlusal plane horizontal

2.

Snap-A ray type film holder was used to hold and stabilize the film. The film was held 2-4 mm apical to its
occlusal edge to prevent its bending

3.

The apical edge of the film is at same position as in routine method but the occlusal edge is placed
around 5 or 10 mm away from the occluso-palatal line angle of the teeth to be radiographed as shown in
diagrammatic representation [Figure 2]

Figure 2: In modified bisecting angle technique, vertical angulation is

reduced by decreasing the angle between the film and the teeth
Click here to view

4.

Vertical angulations given to the X-ray beam for maxillary molars were approximately + 10-+20. If the
distance between the occlusal edge of the film and the occluso-lingual angle of the teeth is 5 mm, then
the vertical angulation will be approximately 5 lesser than what required in BAT. And for the distance of
10 mm, it will be reduced around 10[Table 1] and [Table 2]

Table 1: Average vertical angulations required in MBAT for periapical

projection of maxillary molars if angle between film and teeth is 40
Click here to view

Table 2: Average vertical angulations required in MBAT for periapical

projection of maxillary molars if angle between film and tooth is 30
Click here to view

5.

Horizontal angulation of the central beam should be aimed through the interproximal contact areas to
avoid horizontal image overlapping

6.

Centric point is 0.5-1 cm below the meeting point of perpendicular drawn from outer canthus of eye to ala
tragus line.

Data

collection

Diagnostic radiographs were taken using both the radiographic techniques, namely BAT and MBAT, on the same
tooth utilizing periapical films (Speed E, Eastman Kodak co., Rochester, NY, USA). A single researcher took all the
radiographs using the Snap-A ray film holder (Dentsply Rinn Co., India) for both techniques. Radiographs were

made with a GNATUS (Gnatus Equipamentos Medico-Odontologicos Ltd., Brazil) operated at 70 kVp, 9 mA at 0.6
s. Total filtration was 3.81 mm aluminum equivalent. All exposed films were processed in an automatic processor
with
similar
standards
(MR-C31,

China).

Data

analysis

Each radiograph was recorded as acceptable (A) or unacceptable (UA), based zygomatic superimposition and
technical aspects. Radiographs covering the entire tooth free from zygomatic superimposition and technical errors
and at least 2 mm of periradicular bone were considered A. If a film was rated UA, the reasons for errors were
recorded. Zygomatic superimposition, periapical cutoff (apex not seen) and image distortion were the three
reasons for unacceptability, applicable for both techniques. Each patient was asked about tolerance of both
techniques
and
recorded
as
tolerable
or
intolerable.
All radiographs were assessed by two oral radiologists using a standard illumination source and a viewing box.
Two techniques were compared in preventing zygomatic superimposition, concerned technical errors and patient's
tolerability.
Statistical

analysis

Statistical comparison of two techniques in terms of acceptability and unacceptability was performed using Chisquare test and P value was recorded. The kappa statistics was used to test intra-observer
reliability.

Results

With MBAT (n = 62), the retake (UA) was 17.7% (n = 11), while 35 out of 62 radiographs (56.5%) were repeated
when BAT was employed, as shown in [Table 3]. Periapical radiographs taken by BAT showed zygomatic
interference with root apices [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]. However, radiograph taken on same teeth by MBAT
gave an unobstructed periapical view [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8].

Figure 3: Periapical radiograph taken by bisecting angle technique

shows first molar apices are obscured by anatomical noise of
zygomatic superimposition
Click here to view

Figure 4: Periapical radiograph taken by bisecting angle technique

shows interference of zygomatic process and lower border of
zygomatic arch over molars apices
Click here to view

Figure 5: Periapical radiograph taken by bisecting angle technique

shows zygomatic superimposition over elongated palatal root
Click here to view

Figure 6: Periapical radiograph of same region as shown in figure 3

taken by modified bisecting angle technique, as a result of better
irradiation geometry shows no zygomatic superimposition
Click here to view

Figure 7: Periapical radiograph of same regions as shown in figure 4

taken by modified bisecting angle technique shows teeth apices free
from zygomatic interference
Click here to view

Figure 8: Periapical radiograph of same regions as shown in figure 5

taken by modified bisecting angle technique shows undistorted image
and no zygomatic interference
Click here to view

Table 3: Comparison of MBAT and BAT in preventing zygomatic

superimposition and concerned technical errors
Click here to view

Modified BAT had lesser zygomatic superimposition 9.6% (n = 6) and image distortion 4.8% (n = 3) than BAT
37.1% (n = 23) and 17.7% (n = 11) respectively. However, the incidence of incomplete periapical image was little
higher in MBAT, that is, 3.2% (n = 2) compared with BAT 1.6% (n = 1). Patient tolerated both techniques
comfortably
in
all
cases.
The distribution of various aspects of two techniques was shown in [Figure 9]. A statistically significant difference (P
= 0.000) in preventing zygomatic superimposition was found between MBAT and BAT. The level of agreement

between interpreters was high (kappa index = 0.897).

Figure 9: Distribution of different techniqual aspects of

unacceptability and patient's tolerability in two techniques
Click here to view

Discussion

Periapical radiography in practice is not as easy as it appears in theory. However, a sound theoretical knowledge
helps clinicians in modifying routine techniques to suit individual patient. The anatomy of the mouth does not
always allow rules of geometric projections to be satisfied. PT produces more accurate images than BAT. [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],
[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]
This may be due to satisfying the four of the five projection rules and by using beam-guiding device.
Although PT should be considered as the technique of choice, practically it is not always possible. Oral anatomy
and
patients'
intolerance
sometimes
makes
this
technique
almost
impossible.
On the other hand, BAT is routinely used in dental practice. [4],[13],[14] It is relatively simple, quick and patient
comfortable, but has an inherent drawback of image distortion. However, some investigators concluded that
correctly adjusted BAT and PT provide similar diagnostic results. [15] No significant difference was found between
PT and BAT when both techniques used Rinn XCP film holders. [16]However, the image interference of zygomatic
arch with the apical third of maxillary first and second molars has made BAT diagnostically unreliable in this
region. [17],[18] Therefore, certain alterations were carried out in BAT, and then both techniques were compared in
avoiding
zygomatic
superimposition.
This undiagnostic image superimposition is either technique induced or because of anatomical proximity. In our
study, BAT was unable to separate roots and zygomatic arch in 37.1% of cases. In one research, this separation
was only 40% in BAT. [18] However, in same study PT had prevented zygomatic image superimposition in 73.8%
cases. The reason is central rays in BAT are inferiorly directed and not perpendicular to film and object. Whereas
the beam in PT is perpendicular to both film and object, and therefore usually passes between these structures.
The excessive vertical angle to beam will definitely cause vertical image overlapping. Even correctly angulated
BAT can results in such superimposition because of structural proximity in vertical dimension. This indicates beam
angulation in BAT is usually not low enough to pass between these structures. Just by reducing vertical angulation
without reducing the angle between the film and the teeth will lead to excessive elongation of the image.
Actually, the vertical angulation used in BAT is directly proportional to the angle between the long axis of the teeth
and the plane of the receptor. For that reason, the angle between the film and the teeth in modified technique was
reduced by keeping the occlusal edge of the film little away from the occluso-palatal line angle of teeth to be
radiographed. This film positioning was achieved by placing the bite platform of film holder little lingually.
Consequently, the required vertical angulation will be lesser than the conventional method. Now, the X-ray beam
can pass between the zygomatic buttress and molar apex. Therefore, MBAT had successfully nullified similar
image
overlapping
and
obtained
an
A
radiograph
in
82.3%
of
our
cases.

Film in MBAT can be stabilized with any type of film holder used in BAT. The beam-guiding film holders produced
more dimensionally accurate images than simple film holders. [16] Rinn bisected angle instrument directs the beam
in right vertical and horizontal angulations, which can negate image distortion and also prevent cone-cut. Even
with conventional film holder, we found image distortion only 4.8% in MBAT. This may be because minimum range
of vertical angulation. That's why, image distortion was higher (17.7%) in BAT. None of our radiograph by any
technique was with partial image (cone-cut) indicating all films were kept in front of central rays.
The angle has to be formed between the receptor and the teeth in modified method and it should be lower than the
routine technique. Palatal anatomy guides the distance between the film and the teeth. In case of deep palate, the
distance will be less, around 5 mm and for shallow palatal vault; it will be more, around 10 mm. The distance
beyond
1
cm
usually
aligns
the
film
parallel
to
the
teeth.
Advantages of BAT are justifiable in MBAT as both techniques based on same principles. In addition, MBAT can
minimize disadvantages of BAT like foreshortening of the buccal roots of maxillary molars and shadowing of
zygomatic buttress on roots of maxillary molars. There is also maximum superimposition of buccal and lingual
parts of the teeth and surrounding bone much similar to PT, enabling better detection of approximal caries and
periodontal bone levels. This happens because film is near parallel to the long axis of the teeth. Both techniques
were very well tolerated by all patients. This may be because of plain film holder, simple and short procedures.
Therefore, this modification can be comfortably used in cases unsuitable for PT like shallow palate, gagging and
discomfort.
It
can
be
applied
in
radiographing
other
teeth.
Disadvantages of modified technique are apices of the teeth can sometimes appear near the apical edge of the
film. Periapical cutoff (incomplete apical image) was little higher in MBAT (3.2%) than BAT (1.6%) [Figure 10]. It
happened because film was kept parallel to object like in PT and closer to object like in BAT. However, apical cutoff
is a rare chance in BAT because of more inferiorly directed rays. Otherwise, it is higher in PT, because of divergent
rays between object and receptor and insufficient palatal depth.

Figure 10: Periapical radiograph taken by modified bisecting angle

technique shows periapical image cutoff in first and second molar
region
Click here to view

Some investigators [9],[16] demonstrated the superiority of PT over BAT on single rooted teeth. However, when PT is
used on maxillary molars, radiographic distortions occur because beam is perpendicular to the long axis of the
tooth and not to the buccal or palatal roots. The best radiographic technique for endodontic measurement of
maxillary molar root canals is 10 BAT than PT. [19] For the buccal roots of maxillary molars, the BAT using the Rinn
XCP film holder produced the least mean difference between radiographic image and tooth length. [16] This
indicates MABT can give accurate endodontic dimensions of maxillary first premolar and molars.
The vertical angulations required in MBAT were geometrically calculated and applied. The tooth-film angles in BAT
in all areas of the mouth were found to be close to 30 except the mandibular posterior regions. [20] In practice, the
clinician's goal is to aim the central beam perpendicular to the imaginary bisector. Vertical angulation used in
MBAT, that is, minimum + 10 to maximum + 20 are only approximate, but definitely lesser than what required in
BAT. However, each case should be assessed independently and the vertical angulations suggested should be

taken

only

as

general

guide.

Conclusion

Modified BAT periapical radiography has high accuracy in preventing zygomatic superimposition over roots of
maxillary molars than BAT radiography. Although the patient tolerance of BAT was similar to that of MBAT, the
latter provided undistorted images and also eliminated foreshortening of buccal roots because of more ortho-radial
projection. Periapical cutoff was little higher in MBAT but statistically insignificant. Based on this information, MBAT
is recommended for periapical radiography of maxillary molars. Patient outcome can be improved by avoiding
retakes
and
unnecessary
radiations.
Future

aspects

The comparison between MBAT and PT should be carried out in terms of zygomatic superimposition, concerned
technical
aspects
and
patient's
comfortness.

References
rd

1.

Whaites E. Essentials of Dental Radiography and Radiology. 3

p.

ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2002.

89-110.

2.

White S, Pharoah M. Oral Radiology Principles and Interpretation. 6

35.

3.

Forsberg J, Halse A. Radiographic simulation of a periapical lesion comparing the paralleling and the
bisecting-angle
techniques.
Int
Endod
J
1994;27:133-8.

4.

Chandler NP, Koshy S. Radiographic practices of dentists undertaking endodontics in New Zealand.
Dentomaxillofac
Radiol
2002;31:317-21.

5.

Jameel N, Zakaria N. Radiological accuracy in the interpretation of apical fitness in endodontics. Al-Rafidain
Dent
J
2006;6:151-4.

6.

Melius B, Jiang J, Zhu Q. Measurement of the distance between the minor foramen and the anatomic apex
by
digital
and
conventional
radiography.
J
Endod
2002;28:125-6.

7.

Bean LR. Comparison of bisecting angle and parelleling methods of intraoral radiology. J Dent Educ
1969;33:441-5.

8.

Mourshed F, McKinney AL. A comparison of paralleling and bisecting radiographic techniques as

experienced by dental students. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972;33:284-96.

9.

Forsberg J. A comparison of the paralleling and bisecting-angle radiographic techniques in endodontics. Int
Endod
J
1987;20:177-82.

th

ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2009. p. 109-

10.

Kazzi D, Horner K, Qualtrough A, Martinez-Beneyto Y, Rushton V. A comparative study of three periapical

radiographic techniques for endodontic working length estimation. Int Endod J 1997;30:250-61.

11.

Forsberg J. Radiographic reproduction of endodontic "working length" comparing the paralleling and the
bisecting-angle
techniques.
Oral
Surg
Oral
Med
Oral
Pathol
1987;64:353-60.

12.

Huh KH, Lee SS, Jeon IS, Yi WJ, Heo MS, Choi SC. Quantitative analysis of errors in alveolar crest level
caused by discrepant projection geometry in digital subtraction radiography: An in vivo study. Oral Surg Oral
Med
Oral
Pathol
Oral
Radiol
Endod
2005;100:750-5.

13.

Ilgy D, Ilgy M, Diner S, Bayirli G. Survey of dental radiological practice in Turkey. Dentomaxillofac Radiol
2005;34:222-7.

14.

Tugnait A, Clerehugh V, Hirschmann PN. Radiographic equipment and techniques used in general dental
practice: A survey of general dental practitioners in England and Wales. J Dent 2003;31:197-203.

15.

Forsberg J, Halse A. Periapical radiolucencies as evaluated by bisecting-angle and paralleling radiographic

techniques.
Int
Endod
J
1997;30:115-23.

16.

Bhakdinaronk A, Manson-Hing LR. Effect of radiographic technique upon prediction of tooth length in
intraoral
radiography.
Oral
Surg
Oral
Med
Oral
Pathol
1981;51:100-7.

17.

Tamse A, Kaffe I, Fishel D. Zygomatic arch interference with correct radiographic diagnosis in maxillary molar
endodontics.
Oral
Surg
Oral
Med
Oral
Pathol
1980;50:563-6.

18.

Mahnaz S, Reza Z, Vida M. Comparision of three periapical techniques in distinguishing the roots of
maxillary second molars and preventing superimposition with zygomatic arch. J Isfahan Dent Sch
2012;8:229-34.

19.

Suwadee K, Kanitha A, Gultida T, Supak C. Effect of radiographic techniques on the endodontic

measurement
in
an
upper
molar.
Khon
Kaen
Dent
J
1999;2:75-8.

20.

Manson-Hing LR. What's the angle: A study of the angle bisected in intraoral radiography. Oral Surg Oral
Med Oral Pathol 1980;49:86-9

http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=09709290;year=2014;volume=25;issue=4;spage=521;epage=526;aulast=Jamdade