Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지

Comparative evaluation of computed tomography for dental implants on the mandibular edentulous area

하악 무치악 부위의 임플란트 이식을 위한 전산화단층촬영 영상의 비교 평가

  • Sun, Kyung-Hoon (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Jeong, Ho-Gul (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Park, Hyok (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Park, Chang-Seo (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Kee-Deog (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • 선경훈 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선과학교실, 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 정호걸 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선과학교실, 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 박혁 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선과학교실, 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 박창서 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선과학교실, 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 김기덕 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강악안면방사선과학교실, 구강과학연구소)
  • Published : 2009.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the recently developed multi-detector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in pre-operative implant evaluation, by comparing them with the single detector computed tomography, already confirmed for accuracy in this area. Materials and Methods: Five partially edentulous dry human mandibles, with $1{\times}1mm$ gutta percha cones, placed in 5mm intervals posterior to the mental foramen on each side of the buccal part of the mandible, were used in this study. They were scanned as follows: 1) Single detector computed tomography: slice thickness 1mm, 200mA, 120kV 2) Multi-detector computed tomography: slice thickness 0.75mm, 250mA, 120kV 3) Cone beam computed tomography: 15mAs, 120kV Axial images acquired from three computed tomographies were transferred to personal computer, and then reformatted cross-sectional images were generated using V-Implant $2.0^{(R)}$ (CyberMed Inc., Seoul, Korea) software. Among the cross-sectional images of the gutta perch a cone, placed in the buccal body of the mandible, the most precise cross section was selected as the measuring point and the distance from the most superior border of the mandibular canal to the alveolar crest was measured and analyzed 10 times by a dentist. Results: There were no significant intraobserver differences in the distance from the most superior border of the mandibular canal to the alveolar crest (p>0.05). There were no significant differences among single detector computed tomography, multi-detector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the distance from the most superior border of the mandibular canal to the alveolar crest (p>0.05). Conclusion: Multi-detector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography are clinically useful in the evaluation of pre-operative site for mandibular dental implants, with consideration for radiation exposure dose and scanning time.

Keywords

References

  1. Abrahams JJ. Anatomy of the jaw revisited with a dental CT software program. Am J Neuroradiol 1993; 14 : 979-90.
  2. Andersson JE, Svartz K. CT-scanning in the preoperative planning of osseointegrated implants in the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988; 17 : 33-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(88)80226-1
  3. Maher WP. Topographic, microscopic, radiographic, and computerized morphometric studied of human adult edentate mandible for oral implantologists. Clin Anat 1991; 4 : 327-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.980040503
  4. Frederiksen NL. Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 80 : 540-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(05)80153-2
  5. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Visualization of the mandibular canal by different radiographic techniques. Clin Oral Implant Res 1992; 3 :90-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030207.x
  6. Miles DA, Van Dis ML. Implant radiology. Dent Clin North Am 1993; 37 : 645-68.
  7. Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 20 : 40-2.
  8. Kim KD, Park CS. Reliability of spiral tomography for implant site measurement of the mandible. Korean Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology 1997; 27 : 27-47.
  9. Rothman SLG, Chaftez N, Rhodes ML, Schwartz MS. CT in the preoperative assessment implant surgery. Radiology 1998; 168 : 171-5.
  10. Schwartz MS, Rothman SLG, Rhodes ML, Chaftez N. Computed tomography: Part I. Preoperative assessment of the mandible for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2 :137-48.
  11. Ekestubbe A, Grondahl HG. Reliability of spiral tomography with the Scanora technique for dental implant planning. Clin Oral Implant Res 1993; 4 : 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040405.x
  12. Grondahl K, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl HG, Jonson T. Reliability of hypocycloidal tomography for the evaluation of the distance from the alveolar crest to the mandibular canal. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 19 :2004.
  13. Tammisaro E, Hallikainen D, Kanerva H, Tammisalo T. Comprehensive oral X-ray diagnosis: A preliminary description. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1992; 21 : 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.21.1.1397455
  14. Clark DE, Danforth RA, Barnes RW, Burtch ML. Radiation absorbed from dental implant radiology: A comparison of linear tomography, CT scan, and panoramic and intra-oral techniques. J Oral Implantol 1990; 16 : 156-64.
  15. Ekestubbe A, Thilander A, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Absorbed doses from computed tomography for dental implant surgery: comparison with conventional tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993; 22 :13-7. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.22.1.8508935
  16. Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Sokolowski TW. Effective dose and risk assessment from computed tomography of the maxillofacial complex. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995; 24 : 55-8.
  17. Preda L, Di Maggio EM, Dore R, La Fianza A, Solcia M, Schifino MR, et al. Use of spiral computed tomography for multiplanar dental reconstruction. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997; 26 : 327-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600290
  18. Brink JA. Technical aspects of helical (spiral) CT. Radiol Clin N Am 1995; 33 : 825-41.
  19. Kalender WA, Seissler W, Klotz E, Vock P. Spiral volumetric CT with single-breath-hold technique, continuous transport, and continuous scanner rotation. Radiology 1990; 176 : 181-183. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.176.1.2353088
  20. Hu H. Multi-slice helical CT: scan and reconstruction. Med Phys 1999; 26 : 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598470
  21. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH. Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 2000; 215 : 55- 62.
  22. Wang GE, Vannier MW. The effect of pitch in multislice spiral/helical CT. Med Phys 1999; 26 : 2648-53. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598804
  23. McCollough CH, Zink F. Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys 1999; 26 : 2223-30. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598777
  24. Araki K, Maki K, Seki K, Sakamaki K, Harata Y, Sakaino R, et al. Characteristics of a newly developed dentomaxillofacial X-ray cone beam CT scanner (CB MercuRayTM): system configuration and physical properties. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33 : 51-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/54013049
  25. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28 : 245-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600448
  26. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998; 8 : 1558-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050586
  27. Williams MYA, Mealey BL, Hallmon WW. The role of computerized tomography in dental implantology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992; 7 : 373-80.
  28. Feldkamp LA, Davis LC, Kress JW. Practical cone-beam algorithm. J Opt Soc Am A 1984; 1 : 612-9. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.1.000612
  29. Boon JM. Determination of the presampled MTF in computed tomography. Med Phys 2001; 28 : 356-6 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1350438
  30. Johkoh T, Honda O, Yamamoto S, Tomiyama N, Koyama M, Kozuka T, et al. Evaluation of image quality and spatial resolution of low-dose high-pitch multidetector-row helical high-resolution CT in 11 autopsy lungs and a wire phantom. Radiat Med 2001; 19 : 279-84.