. Elementary and dental radiography / by Howard Riley Raper . one view of the part from oneviewpoint. No one thing contributes more to mistakes in diagnosis thanpinning ones faith implicitly upon the appearance of a single more radiographic work I do the more I find myself radiographingthe same part again and again before venturing an opinion. 35. To Mistake Hypercementosis For a Poorly Made Radio-graph. In some cases of hypercementosis it is impossible to show the outlineof the root of the tooth distinctly. (Fig. 431.) 36. Not to Know the Difference Between a Good Radiographand
. Elementary and dental radiography / by Howard Riley Raper . one view of the part from oneviewpoint. No one thing contributes more to mistakes in diagnosis thanpinning ones faith implicitly upon the appearance of a single more radiographic work I do the more I find myself radiographingthe same part again and again before venturing an opinion. 35. To Mistake Hypercementosis For a Poorly Made Radio-graph. In some cases of hypercementosis it is impossible to show the outlineof the root of the tooth distinctly. (Fig. 431.) 36. Not to Know the Difference Between a Good Radiographand a Poor One. Figure 432 shows a wire apparently in the canal of an upper 432, however, is a distorted radiograph due to the angle of theX-rays and bending of the film. Figure 433 is of the same tooth, is agood radiograph, and shows the wire passing through a perforation to thedistal. READING RADIOGRAPHS 385 Figure 434 shows the outline of the roots of a lower, first molarvery indistinct. Figure 435 is of the same tooth hut this time the rays. Fig. 431. Hypercementosis of upper bicuspids. The outline of the roots of the bicuspids is:iut distinct, due to the hypercementosis, not to some fault in technic.
Size: 1762px × 1418px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., book, bookauthorraperhowardriley, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910
