Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images

DSpace Repository

Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images

Overview

Detailed record

dc.contributor.author Correa, Leticia en_US
dc.contributor.author Spin-Neto, Rubens en_US
dc.contributor.author Stavropoulos, Andreas en_US
dc.contributor.author Schropp, Lars en_US
dc.contributor.author da Silveira, Heloísa en_US
dc.contributor.author Wenzel, Ann en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2013-12-17T15:03:42Z
dc.date.available 2013-12-17T15:03:42Z
dc.date.issued 2014 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1600-0501 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2043/16313
dc.description.abstract OBJECTIVES: To compare the implant size (width and length) planned with digital panoramic radiographs, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-generated panoramic views, or CBCT cross-sectional images, in four implant systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-one patients with a total of 103 implant sites in the upper premolar and/or lower molar regions were examined with digital panoramic radiography (D-PAN) and (CBCT). A metal ball 5 mm in diameter was placed in the edentulous area for the D-PAN. CBCT data sets were reformatted to a 10-mm thick CBCT panoramic view (CBCT-pan) and 1-mm cross-sections (CBCT-cross). Measurements were performed in the images using dedicated software. All images were displayed on a monitor and assessed by three observers who outlined a dental implant by placing four reference points in the site of the implant-to-be. Differences in width and length of the implant-to-be from the three modalities were analyzed. The implant size selected in the CBCT-cross images was then compared to that selected in the other two modalities (D-PAN and CBCT-pan) for each of the implant systems separately. RESULTS: The implant-to-be (average measurements among observers) was narrower when measured in CBCT-cross compared with both D-PAN and CBCT-Pan. For premolar sites, the width also differed significantly between D-PAN and CBCT-pan modalities. The implant-to-be was also significantly shorter when recorded in CBCT-cross than in D-PAN. In premolar sites, there were no significant differences in implant length among the three image modalities. It mattered very little for the change in implant step sizes whether CBCT-cross was compared to D-PAN or CBCT-pan images. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the selected implant size differs when planned on panoramic or cross-section CBCT images. In most cases, implant size measured in cross-section images was narrower and shorter than implant size measured in a panoramic image or CBCT-based panoramic view en_US
dc.format.extent 6
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher Blackwell en_US
dc.subject cone beam computed tomography en_US
dc.subject digital panoramic radiography en_US
dc.subject implant planning en_US
dc.subject implant size en_US
dc.subject.classification Medicine en_US
dc.title Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images en_US
dc.type Article, peer reviewed scientific en_US
dc.contributor.department Malmö University. Faculty of Odontology
dc.identifier.doi 10.1111/clr.12126 en_US
dc.subject.srsc Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpublication Clinical Oral Implants Research;6
dc.relation.ispartofpublicationvolume 25
dc.format.ePage 695
dc.format.sPage 690
 Find Full text Files for download

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Overview

Search


Browse

My Account

Statistics