CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY VERSUS DIGITAL ORTHOPANTOMOGRAPHY IN TREATMENT PLANNING FOR MANDIBULAR DENTAL IMPLANTS | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 14, Volume 41, Issue 2, August 2016, Page 199-205 PDF (960.16 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59283 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Albelbeisi Tareq M.* ; Khtob Ahmed R* ; Hassan Nagy E* | ||||
| B.D.S. Faculty of Dentistry, October 6 University. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: successful implant treatment depends on efficient planning. This should include information on height, width, morphology and density of the bone, as well as identification and location of anatomical landmarks in imaging exams. OBJECTIVES: to investigate the impact of cone-beam computed tomography on implant planning and on prediction of final implant size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: overall, 17 implant were placed in the posterior mandible of ten patients with age ranging between (25-50) years of both sexes. The patients were referred for pre surgical images. Initial planning of implant length and width was assessed based on panoramic radiograph exam, and final planning on cone-beam computed tomography exam to complement diagnosis. The actual dimensions of the implants placed during surgery were compared with those obtained during initial and final planning. RESULTS: ten patients were selected, 4 males and 6 females and age ranged between (25-50) years. The study included 17 implants. Agreement in implant length was 58.8% between initial and final planning, and correct prediction of the actual implant length was 58.8% and 100%, using panoramic radiograph and cone-beam computed tomography exams, respectively. Agreement in implant width assessment ranged from 64.7% to 100%. A paired comparison of the frequency of changes between initial or final planning and implant placement (paired t-test) showed greater frequency of changes in initial planning for implant length (p < 0.056), but not for implant width (p=0.342). CONCLUSIONS: it was concluded that cone-beam computed tomography improves the ability of predicting the actual implant length and reduces inaccuracy in surgical dental implant planning. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| dental implant; Radiography; Panoramic; Cone-beam computed tomography | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Holst S, Blatz M.B., Eitner S. Precision for Computer – Guided Implant Placement: Using 3D Planning Software and fixed Intraoral Reference Points. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 393-9.
2. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 566-70.
3. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, ScarfeWC. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113: 817-26.
4. Engelman MJ, Sorensen JA, Moy P. Optimum placement of osseointegrated implants. J Prothet Dent. 1988; 59: 467-73.
5. DaSilva JD, Schnitman PA, Wohrle PS, Wang HN. Influence of site on implant survival: 6-year results. J Dent Res 1992; 71: 56-59.
6. Tyndall AA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant siteimaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89: 630-7.
7. Beason RC, Brooks SL. Preoperative implant site assessment in southeast Michigan. J Dent Res 2001; 80: 137-40.
8. Dula K, Mini R, van der Stelt PF, Buser D. The radiographic assessment of implant patients: decision-making criteria. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16: 80-9.
9. Stramotas S, Geenty JP, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Accuracy of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs taken at various positions in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2002; 24: 43-52.
10. Quereshy FA, Savell TA, Palomo JM. Applications of cone beam computed tomography in the practice of oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66: 791-6.
11. Miracle AC, Mukheji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 1088-96.
12. White SC, Pharoah MJ, Frederiksen NL. Computed Tomography. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ (eds). Oral Radiology Principles and interpretation. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Mosby Elsevier, 2008. 207-12.
13. Bartling R, Freeman K, Kraut RA. The incidence of altered sensation of the mental nerve after mandibular implant placement. J Oral maxillofac Surg 1999; 57:1408-11.
14. Greenstein G, Tarnow D. The mental foramen and nerve: clinical and anatomical s factors related to dental implant placement. J Periodontol 2006; 77: 1933-7.
15. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser US. Bernard J. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 81-5.
16. Kraut RA. Chahal O. Management of patients with trigeminal nerve injuries after mandibular implant placement. J Am Dent Assoc 2002; 133: 1351-4.
17. Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res 2008; 31: 165-9.
18. McClanahan SF, Bartizek RD, Biesbrock AR. Identification and consequences of distinct Löe-Silness gingival index examiner styles for the clinical assessment of gingivitis. J Periodontol 2001; 72: 383-92.
19. Steflik D, Koth DL, Robinson F, McKinney R, Davis B, Morris C, et al. Prospective investigation of the singlecrystal sapphire endosteal dental implant in humans: Tenyear results. J Oral Implantol 1995; 21: 8-18.
20. Batenburg RH, Stellingsma K, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Bone height measurements on panoramic radiographs: the effect of shape and position of edentulous mandibles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997; 84: 430-5.
21. Choi YG, Kim YK, Eckert SE, Shim CH. Cross-sectional study of the factors that influence radiographic magnification of implant diameter and length. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 594-6.
22. White SC, Heslop EW, Hollender LG, Mosier KM, Ruprecht A, Shrout MK. Parameters of radiologic care: An official report of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 91: 498-511.
23. Vazquez L, Nizamaldin Y, Combescure C, Nedir R, Bischof M, Dohan Ehrenfest DM, et al. Accuracy of vertical height measurements on direct digital panoramic radiographs using posterior mandibular implants and metal balls as reference objects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42:20110429.
24. Vazques L, Nizam Al Din Y, Christoph Belser U, Comescure C, Bernard JP.Reliability of the vertical magnification factor on panoramic radiographs: clinical implications for posterior mandibular implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1420-5.
25. Gerlach NL, Meijer GJ, Maal TJ, Mulder J, Rangel FA, Borstlap WA, et al. Reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods based on cone beam computed tomography in determining the anatomical position of the mandibular canal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68: 811-7.
26. Renton T, Dawood A, Shah A, Searson L, Yilmaz Z. Postimplant neuropathy of the trigeminal nerve. A case series. Br Dent J 2012; 212: E17.
27. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent 2012; 21: 78-86.
28. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Michiles K, Teughels W, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of failures up to abutment connection with modified surface oral implants. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 51-7.
29. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17(Suppl 2): 35-51.
30. Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, Kultje C. Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20: 220-30.
31. Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D, Hürzeler MB, Faehn O, Sanavi F, et al. A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of followup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 417-23.
32. Lemmerman KJ, Lemmerman NE. Osseointegrated dental implants in private practice: a long-term case series study. J Periodontol 2005; 76: 310-9.
33. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 247-59.
34. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for crosssection imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 490-7.
35. Diniz AF, Mendonça EF, Leles CR, Guilherme AS, Cavalcante MP, Silva MA. Changes in the pre-surgical treatment planning using conventional spiral tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 249-53. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 134 PDF Download: 972 |
||||
