Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reliability of two different presurgical preparation methods for implant dentistry based on panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in cadavers

  • Hu, Kyung-Seok (Division in Anatomy and Histology, Department of Oral Biology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Choi, Da-Yae (Division in Anatomy and Histology, Department of Oral Biology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Won-Jae (Division in Anatomy and Histology, Department of Oral Biology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Jin (Division in Anatomy and Histology, Department of Oral Biology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jung, Ui-Won (Department of Periodontology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Tae (Department of Periodontology, Seoul National University School of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2012.01.26
  • Accepted : 2012.03.08
  • Published : 2012.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Special care is necessary to avoid invading important anatomic structures during surgery when presurgical planning is made based on radiographs. However, none of these types of radiography represents a perfect modality. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of presurgical planning based on the use of two types of radiographic image (digital panoramic radiography [DPR] and cone-beam computed tomography [CBCT]) by beginner dentists to place implants, and to quantify differences in measurements between radiographic images and real specimens. Methods: Ten fresh cadavers without posterior teeth were used, and twelve practitioners who had no experience of implant surgery performed implant surgery after 10 hours of basic instruction using conventional surgical guide based on CBCT or DPR. Two types of measurement error were evaluated: 1) the presurgical measurement error, defined as that between the presurgical and postsurgical measurements in each modality of radiographic analysis, and 2) the measurement error between postsurgical radiography and the real specimen. Results: The mean presurgical measurement error was significantly smaller for CBCT than for DPR in the maxillary region, whereas it did not differ significantly between the two imaging modalities in the mandibular region. The mean measurement error between radiography and real specimens was significantly smaller for CBCT than for DPR in the maxillary region, but did not differ significantly in the mandibular region. Conclusions: Presurgical planning can be performed safely using DPR in the mandible; however, presurgical planning using CBCT is recommended in the maxilla when a structure in a buccolingual location needs to be evaluated because this imaging modality supplies buccolingual information that cannot be obtained from DPR.

Keywords

References

  1. Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Enbom L, Engevall S, Engquist B, Eriksson AR, et al. Osseointegrated oral implants: a Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol 1988;59:287-96. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1988.59.5.287
  2. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17:5-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059
  3. Van de Velde T, Glor F, De Bruyn H. A model study on flapless implant placement by clinicians with a different experience level in implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:66-72.
  4. Spector L. Computer-aided dental implant planning. Dent Clin North Am 2008;52:761-75, vi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.004
  5. Hong YH, Mun SK. A case of massive maxillary sinus bleeding after dental implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40:758-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.11.027
  6. Cho-Lee GY, Naval-Gias L, Castrejon-Castrejon S, Capote-Moreno AL, Gonzalez-Garcia R, Sastre-Perez J, et al. A 12-year retrospective analytic study of the implant survival rate in 177 consecutive maxillary sinus augmentation procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:1019-27.
  7. Scaf G, Lurie AG, Mosier KM, Kantor ML, Ramsby GR, Freedman ML. Dosimetry and cost of imaging osseointegrated implants with film-based and computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997;83:41-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(97)90089-5
  8. Stella JP, Tharanon W. A precise radiographic method to determine the location of the inferior alveolar canal in the posterior edentulous mandible: implications for dental implants. Part 2: Clinical application. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:23-9.
  9. Reiskin AB. Implant imaging: status, controversies, and new developments. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:47-56.
  10. Sunden S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Accuracy and precision in the radiographic diagnosis of clinical instability in Branemark dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6:220-6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060404.x
  11. Peker I, Alkurt MT, Michcioglu T. The use of 3 different imaging methods for the localization of the mandibular canal in dental implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:463-70.
  12. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:490-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01032.x
  13. Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991;20:40-2. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20.1.1884852
  14. Bolin A, Eliasson S, von Beetzen M, Jansson L. Radiographic evaluation of mandibular posterior implant sites: correlation between panoramic and tomographic determinations. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:354-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070408.x
  15. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Visualisation of the mandibular canal by different radiographic techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:90-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030207.x
  16. Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: 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. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2000.106336
  17. Hanazawa T, Sano T, Seki K, Okano T. Radiologic measurements of the mandible: a comparison between CT-reformatted and conventional tomographic images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:226-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00991.x
  18. Reddy MS, Mayfield-Donahoo T, Vanderven FJ, Jeffcoat MK. A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of panoramic radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:229-38. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050406.x
  19. Al-Ekrish AA, Ekram M. A comparative study of the accuracy and reliability of multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40:67-75. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/27546065
  20. Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Iwai K, Araki M, Kawashima S, Terakado M. A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with a multidetector row helical CT machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95:371-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2003.120
  21. 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
  22. Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:228-31.
  23. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:96-103. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060205.x

Cited by

  1. Commentary on "Reliability of two different presurgical preparation methods for implant dentistry based on panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in cadavers" vol.42, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2012.42.4.144
  2. Maxillary Sinus and Mandibular Canal Location vol.4, pp.11, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4103/1947-2714.103324
  3. Assessment of the Mandibular Incisive Canal by Panoramic Radiograph and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography vol.2014, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/187085
  4. Impact of cone-beam computed tomography on implant planning and on prediction of implant size vol.28, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-83242013005000029
  5. Interactive 3D imaging technologies: application in advanced methods of jaw bone reconstruction using stem cells/pre-osteoblasts in oral surgery vol.9, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2014.43126
  6. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography voxel density and linear distance measurement at different voxel sizes: A study on sheep head cadaver vol.12, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2016.11.004
  7. Reliability of Orthopantomography and Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Clinical Study vol.18, pp.8, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2103
  8. Comparing the precision of panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in avoiding anatomical structures critical to dental implant surgery: A retrospective study vol.48, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.4.269
  9. Evaluation of Predictability of Suitable Implant Lengths as related to Accurate Treatment Planning using Recent Roentgenographic Measures: A Key to Success vol.19, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2295
  10. The evaluation of mandibular canal visibility on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images: A cross-sectional study vol.7, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.29252/jorjanibiomedj.7.3.56
  11. 2D vs. 3D Radiological Methods for Dental Age Determination around 18 Years: A Systematic Review vol.10, pp.9, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10093094
  12. Comparison of the performances of low-crystalline carbonate apatite and Bio-Oss in sinus augmentation using three-dimensional image analysis vol.7, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00303-4