Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Preoperative implant planning considering alveolar bone grafting needs and complication prediction using panoramic versus CBCT 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) ;
  • Jacobs, Reinhilde (OIC, OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven)
  • Received : 2014.03.20
  • Accepted : 2014.05.01
  • Published : 2014.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to determine the efficacy of observers' prediction for the need of bone grafting and presence of perioperative complications on the basis of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic radiographic (PAN) planning as compared to the surgical outcome. Materials and Methods: One hundred and eight partially edentulous patients with a need for implant rehabilitation were referred for preoperative imaging. Imaging consisted of PAN and CBCT images. Four observers carried out implant planning using PAN image datasets, and at least one month later, using CBCT image datasets. Based on their own planning, the observers assessed the need for bone graft augmentation as well as complication prediction. The implant length and diameter, the need for bone graft augmentation, and the occurrence of anatomical complications during planning and implant placement were statistically compared. Results: In the 108 patients, 365 implants were installed. Receiver operating characteristic analyses of both PAN and CBCT preoperative planning showed that CBCT performed better than PAN-based planning with respect to the need for bone graft augmentation and perioperative complications. The sensitivity and the specificity of CBCT for implant complications were 96.5% and 90.5%, respectively, and for bone graft augmentation, they were 95.2% and 96.3%, respectively. Significant differences were found between PAN-based planning and the surgery of posterior implant lengths. Conclusion: Our findings indicated that CBCT-based preoperative implant planning enabled treatment planning with a higher degree of prediction and agreement as compared to the surgical standard. In PAN-based surgery, the prediction of implant length was poor.

Keywords

References

  1. Del Fabbro M, Rosano G, Taschieri S. Implant survival rates after maxillary sinus augmentation. Eur J Oral Sci 2008; 116: 497-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00571.x
  2. Emmerich D, Att W, Stappert C. Sinus floor elevation using osteotomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2005; 76: 1237-51. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.8.1237
  3. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 216-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01272.x
  4. 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
  5. Ella B, Sedarat C, Noble Rda C, Normand E, Lauverjat Y, Siberchicot F, et al. Vascular connections of the lateral wall of the sinus: surgical effect in sinus augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 1047-52.
  6. Flanagan D. Arterial supply of maxillary sinus and potential for bleeding complication during lateral approach sinus elevation. Implant Dent 2005; 14: 336-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000188437.66363.7c
  7. Kalpidis CD, Setayesh RM. Hemorrhaging associated with endosseous implant placement in the anterior mandible: a review of the literature. J Periodontol 2004; 75: 631-45. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2004.75.5.631
  8. 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
  9. Misch K, Wang HL. Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent 2008; 17: 159-68. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181752f61
  10. Jacobs R, Quirynen M, Bornstein M. Neurovascular disturbances after implant surgery. Periodontol 2000 2014; 66: 188-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12050
  11. Guerrero ME, Botetano R, Beltran J, Horner K, Jacobs R. Can preoperative imaging help to predict postoperative outcome after wisdom tooth removal? A randomized controlled trial using panoramic radiography versus cone-beam CT. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18: 335-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0971-x
  12. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1981. p. 229-32.
  13. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluation of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ; 2001. p. 248-82.
  14. Timmenga NM, Raghoebar GM, Liem RS, van Weissenbruch R, Manson WL, Vissink A. Effects of maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery on maxillary sinus physiology. Eur J Oral Sci 2003; 111: 189-97. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00012.x
  15. van den Bergh JP, ten Bruggenkate CM, Disch FJ, Tuinzing DB. Anatomical aspects of sinus floor elevations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 256-65. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003256.x
  16. Apostolakis D, Brown JE. The anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve: prevalence, measurement of its length and a recommendation for interforaminal implant installation based on cone beam CT imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 1022-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02261.x
  17. 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
  18. Guerrero ME, Noriega J, Castro C, Jacobs R. Does cone-beam CT alter treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative implant planning using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images. Imaging Sci Dent 2014; 44: 121-8. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2014.44.2.121
  19. Renton T, Dawood A, Shah A, Searson L, Yilmaz Z. Post-implant neuropathy of the trigeminal nerve. A case series. Br Dent J 2012; 212: E17. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.497
  20. Temmerman A, Hertele S, Teughels W, Dekeyser C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Are panoramic images reliable in planning sinus augmentation procedures? Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 189-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02000.x
  21. Marx RE, Garg AK. A novel aid to elevation of the sinus membrane for the sinus lift procedure. Implant Dent 2002; 11: 268-71. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-200207000-00012
  22. Testori T, Wallace SS, Del Fabbro M, Taschieri S, Trisi P, Capelli M, et al. Repair of large sinus membrane perforations using stabilized collagen barrier membranes: surgical techniques with histologic and radiographic evidence of success. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008; 28: 9-17.
  23. Cho SC, Wallace SS, Froum SJ, Tarnow DP. Influence of anatomy on Schneiderian membrane perforations during sinus elevation surgery: three-dimensional analysis. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001; 13: 160-3.
  24. Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, Buser D. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall - a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011; 31: 125-31.
  25. Chan HL, Garaicoa-Pazmino C, Suarez F, Monje A, Benavides E, Oh TJ, et al. Incidence of implant buccal plate fenestration in the esthetic zone: a cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 171-7. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3397

Cited by

  1. Evaluation of symptomatic maxillary sinus pathologies using panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography—influence of professional training vol.3, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0075-5
  2. The Use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Management of Patients Requiring Dental Implants: An American Academy of Periodontology Best Evidence Review vol.88, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2017.160548
  3. Presurgical evaluation of bony implant sites using panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography—influence of medical education vol.46, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160081
  4. Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: An Evidence-Based Review vol.7, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7020052
  5. Donor-site Morbidity after Retromolar Bone Harvesting Using a Standardised Press Fit Cylinder Protocol vol.12, pp.22, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12223802
  6. Influence of the Digital Mock-Up and Experience on the Ability to Determine the Prosthetically Correct Dental Implant Position during Digital Planning: An In Vitro Study vol.9, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9010048