RESUMEN
The assessment of this study was made by five observers. Twenty-five patients for each a panoramic and full-mouth [10 periapical and 4 posterior bitewing] radiographs were taken, each for the ability to interpret and measure the marginal bone level. The image quality of each site was classified as excellent, acceptable or un-acceptable. Errors that affecting the interpretation and measurements were also noted. In the upper arch, the frequency of un-interpretable and non-measurable sites was also equal for panoramic and periapical radiography. We noticed that the image quality was better with periapical radiography in the lower arch. In posterior regions of both arches, more sites could not be measured from panoramic compared with bitewing radiographs. Due to overlapping the distal surface of the maxillary canine and mesial surface of the first maxillary premolar could often not be interpreted in either panoramic or periapical radiographs, but infrequently in the bitewings. In the lower arch, the most frequent depiction error was inadequate density in the incisor region of panoramic radiographs. On the basis of these results, we proposed that in clinical practice the panoramic radiograph could be supplemented with individually selected periapical radiographs