Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Does cone-beam CT alter treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative implant planning using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images

  • Guerrero, Maria Eugenia (OIC, OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven) ;
  • Noriega, Jorge (Master of Periodontology, Universidad San Martin de Porres) ;
  • Castro, Carmen (Master of Periodontology, Universidad San Martin de Porres) ;
  • Jacobs, Reinhilde (OIC, OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven)
  • Received : 2014.01.20
  • Accepted : 2014.02.27
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The present study was performed to compare the planning of implant placement based on panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, and to study the impact of the image dataset on the treatment planning. Materials and Methods: One hundred five partially edentulous patients (77 males, 28 females, mean age: 46 years, range: 26-67 years) seeking oral implant rehabilitation were referred for presurgical imaging. Imaging consisted of PAN and CBCT imaging. Four observers planned implant treatment based on the two-dimensional (2D) image data-sets and at least one month later on the three-dimensional (3D) image dataset. Apart from presurgical diagnostic and dimensional measurement tasks, the observers needed to indicate the surgical confidence levels and assess the image quality in relation to the presurgical needs. Results: All observers confirmed that both imaging modalities (PAN and CBCT) gave similar values when planning implant diameter. Also, the results showed no differences between both imaging modalities for the length of implants with an anterior location. However, significant differences were found in the length of implants with a posterior location. For implant dimensions, longer lengths of the implants were planned with PAN, as confirmed by two observers. CBCT provided images with improved scores for subjective image quality and surgical confidence levels. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, there was a trend toward PAN-based preoperative planning of implant placement leading towards the use of longer implants within the posterior jaw bone.

Keywords

References

  1. Belser UC, Schmid B, Higginbottom F, Buser D. Outcome analysis of implant restorations located in the anterior maxilla: a review of the recent literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19 Suppl: 30-42.
  2. Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7: 329-36. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070405.x
  3. Flanagan D. Important arterial supply of the mandible, control of an arterial hemorrhage, and report of a hemorrhagic incident. J Oral Implantol 2003; 29: 165-73. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2003)029<0165:IASOTM>2.3.CO;2
  4. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Romanos G, Tarnow D. Clinical recommendations for avoiding and managing surgical complications associated with implant dentistry: a review. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 1317-29. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070067
  5. Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, Hirsch E, Schutyser F, Quirynen M, et al. Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional conebeam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 816- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01110.x
  6. SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel. Radiation protection No 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Comminssion Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.
  7. Harris D, Horner K, Grondahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 1243-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02441.x
  8. Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam CT and its justified use for planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000 (in press).
  9. Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4
  10. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Naert I, Quirynen M, Hermans R, Van Steenberghe D. Predictability of reformatted computed tomography for pre-operative planning of endosseous implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 37-41. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600403
  11. Vazquez L, Nizam Al Din Y, Christoph Belser U, Combescure 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02131.x
  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20110429
  13. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Fieuws S, Willems G. Comparison of two cone beam computed tomographic systems versus panoramic imaging for localization of impacted maxillary canines and detection of root resorption. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33: 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq034
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.059
  15. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. 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. 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.497
  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31824885b5
  18. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Michiles K, Teughels W, Komarek 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.
  19. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 424-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02006.x
  20. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 Suppl 2: 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01349.x
  21. 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.
  22. Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D, Hurzeler MB, Faehn O, Sanavi F, et al. A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 417-23.
  23. Lemmerman KJ, Lemmerman NE. Osseointegrated dental implants in private practice: a long-term case series study. J Periodontol 2005; 76: 310-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.2.310
  24. 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.
  25. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Verstreken K, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Predictability of a three-dimensional planning system for oral implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 105-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600419
  26. 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
  27. Diniz AF, Mendonca 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01475.x
  28. 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
  29. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 265-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042
  30. Shelley AM, Brunton P, Horner K. Subjective image quality assessment of cross sectional imaging methods for the symphyseal region of the mandible prior to dental implant placement. J Dent 2011; 39: 764-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.008
  31. 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: 446-54.
  32. Baciut M, Hedesiu M, Bran S, Jacobs R, Nackaerts O, Baciut G. Pre- and postoperative assessment of sinus grafting procedures using cone-beam computed tomography compared with panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 512-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02408.x

Cited by

  1. How do dentists use CBCT in dental clinics? A Norwegian nationwide survey vol.73, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2014.979866
  2. Facial Contouring Surgery with Custom Silicone Implants Based on a 3D Prototype Model and CT-Scan: A Preliminary Study vol.39, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0482-z
  3. Do CBCT scans alter surgical treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative surgical diagnosis using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images vol.44, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.025
  4. Dental Implant Surgery: From Conventional to Guided to Navigated Approach vol.5, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-018-0182-2
  5. Influence of Three-dimensional Imaging on Implant Treatment Planning: Implant Diameter and Length vol.19, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2323
  6. Influence of 2D vs 3D imaging and professional experience on dental implant treatment planning vol.23, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2511-1
  7. A reject analysis of cone-beam CTs in under-aged patients vol.48, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180138
  8. CBCT of Swedish children and adolescents at an oral and maxillofacial radiology department. A survey of requests and indications vol.78, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2019.1645879
  9. Outcomes of different radioprotective precautions in children undergoing dental radiography: a systematic review vol.21, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-020-00544-8