Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Orthopantomography with Direct Ridge Mapping for Pre-Surgical Planning to Place Implants in Cadaveric Mandibles: An Ex-Vivo Study

G S Amarnath, Ullash Kumar, Mohammed Hilal, B C Muddugangadhar, Kopal Anshuraj, C S Shruthi, G S Amarnath, Ullash Kumar, Mohammed Hilal, B C Muddugangadhar, Kopal Anshuraj, C S Shruthi

Abstract

Background: Implant treatment is today a common and most widely accepted prosthetic therapy worldwide. The quality and quantity of the bone available at the anticipated implant site is of prime importance. Accurate measurement of alveolar bone and adjacent anatomic structures are of paramount importance in implant insertion. Proper pre-surgical assessment requires precise radiographic visualization of anatomic structures and pathologic conditions. However, the concern for radiation exposure has also grown.

Materials and methods: A total of 15 partially or completely edentulous human cadaveric mandibles were used which were further subdivided into three further groups for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), orthopantomography (OPG), and direct measurements (DM). Mandibles were prepared for each sample and subjected to radiographs according to the respective techniques, and radiographic measurements were done using the appropriate software. The cadaveric mandibles were then sectioned, and the actual measurements were done using a digital vernier caliper.

Results: Analysis of variance test revealed that there was no significant difference among the three different measurements techniques.

Conclusion: A sizable portion of the CBCT measurements with respect to width showed slight overestimation when compared to DMs. There were no statistically significant differences found between CBCT, OPG, and DM when height was taken into consideration.

Keywords: Cone beam computed tomography; direct measurements; implant orthopantomography.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None

Figures

Graph 1
Graph 1
Comparison of cone beam computed tomography, orthopantomography, and direct measurements with respect to bone height in the cadaveric mandible.
Graph 2
Graph 2
Comparison of cone beam computed tomography and direct measurements with respect to bone width in the cadaveric mandible (right).
Graph 3
Graph 3
Comparison of cone beam computed tomography, and direct measurements with respect to bone width in the cadaveric mandible (left).

References

    1. Pette GA, Norkin FJ, Ganeles J, Hardigan P, Lask E, Zfaz S, et al. Incidental findings from a retrospective study of 318 cone beam computed tomography consultation reports. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(3):595–603.
    1. Hu KS, Choi DY, Lee WJ, Kim HJ, Jung UW, Kim S. Reliability of two different presurgical preparation methods for implant dentistry based on panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in cadavers. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2012;42(2):39–44.
    1. Perez LA, Brooks SL, Wang HL, Eber RM. Comparison of linear tomography and direct ridge mapping for the determination of edentulous ridge dimensions in human cadavers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;99(6):748–54.
    1. Allen F, Smith DG. An assessment of the accuracy of ridge-mapping in planning implant therapy for the anterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11(1):34–8.
    1. Tepper G, Hofschneider UB, Gahleitner A, Ulm C. Computed tomographic diagnosis and localization of bone canals in the mandibular interforaminal region for prevention of bleeding complications during implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16(1):68–72.
    1. 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(1):80–9.
    1. Miles DA, Danforth RA. Cone beam computed tomography: From capture to reporting. Dent Clin North Am. 2014;58(3):ix–x.
    1. Naitoh M, Kawamata A, Iida H, Ariji E. Cross-sectional imaging of the jaws for dental implant treatment: Accuracy of linear tomography using a panoramic machine in comparison with reformatted computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17(1):107–12.
    1. Kullman L, Al-Asfour A, Zetterqvist L, Andersson L. Comparison of radiographic bone height assessments in panoramic and intraoral radiographs of implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(1):96–100.
    1. Loubele M, Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. A comparison of jaw dimensional and quality assessments of bone characteristics with cone-beam CT, spiral tomography, and multi-slice spiral CT. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(3):446–54.
    1. Kaya Y, Sencimen M, Sahin S, Okcu KM, Dogan N, Bahcecitapar M. Retrospective radiographic evaluation of the anterior loop of the mental nerve: Comparison between panoramic radiography and spiral computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(5):919–25.
    1. Chen LC, Lundgren T, Hallström H, Cherel F. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. J Periodontol. 2008;79(3):401–5.
    1. Baba R, Ueda K, Okabe M. Using a flat-panel detector in high resolution cone beam CT for dental imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33(5):285–90.
    1. 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(3):463–70.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe