Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Comparing the precision of panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in avoiding anatomical structures critical to dental implant surgery: A retrospective study

  • Ozalp, Oznur (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University) ;
  • Tezerisener, Huseyin Alican (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University) ;
  • Kocabalkan, Burak (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University) ;
  • Buyukkaplan, Ulviye Sebnem (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University) ;
  • Ozarslan, Mehmet Mustafa (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University) ;
  • Kaya, Goksel Simsek (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University) ;
  • Altay, Mehmet Ali (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University) ;
  • Sindel, Alper (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University)
  • Received : 2018.07.23
  • Accepted : 2018.10.19
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlations between measurements made using panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) based on certain anatomical landmarks of the jaws, with the goal of preventing complications due to inaccurate measurements in the pre-surgical planning phase of dental implant placement. Materials and Methods: A total of 56 individuals who underwent panoramic radiography and a CBCT evaluation before dental implant surgery were enrolled in the study. Measurements were performed to identify the shortest vertical distance between the alveolar crest and neighboring anatomical structures, including the maxillary sinus, nasal floor, mandibular canal, and foramen mentale. The differences between the measurements on panoramic radiography and CBCT images were statistically analyzed. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed between the measurements on panoramic radiography and CBCT for all anatomical structures (P<.05). The correlation coefficients (r) between the paired samples obtained from panoramic radiography and CBCT were closely correlated (P<.05), with r values varying from 0.921 and 0.979 for different anatomical regions. Conclusion: The results of this study support the idea that panoramic radiography might provide sufficient information on bone height for preoperative implant planning in routine cases or when CBCT is unavailable. However, an additional CBCT evaluation might be helpful in cases where a safety margin cannot be respected due to insufficient bone height.

Keywords

References

  1. Ali SA, Karthigeyan S, Deivanai M, Kumar A. Implant rehabilitation for atrophic maxilla: a review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014; 14: 196-207.
  2. Misch K, Wang HL. Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent 2008; 17: 159-68. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181752f61
  3. Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Clinical utility of dental cone-beam computed tomography: current perspectives. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2014; 6: 29-43.
  4. Ahlqwist M, Halling A, Hollender L. Rotational panoramic radiography in epidemiological studies of dental health. Comparison between panoramic radiographs and intraoral full mouth surveys. Swed Dent J 1986; 10: 73-84.
  5. Lecomber AR, Yoneyama Y, Lovelock DJ, Hosoi T, Adams AM. Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 255-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600627
  6. Monsour PA, Dudhia R. Implant radiography and radiology. Aust Dent J 2008; 53 Suppl 1: S11-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00037.x
  7. Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam computed tomography: justification for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000 2014; 66: 203-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12051
  8. Verstreken K, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Marchal G, Naert I, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Computer-assisted planning of oral implant surgery: a three-dimensional approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11: 806-10.
  9. Amarnath GS, Kumar U, Hilal M, Muddugangadhar BC, Anshuraj K, Shruthi CS. 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. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7(Suppl 1): 38-42.
  10. Klatt JC, Heiland M, Marx S, Hanken H, Schmelzle R, Pohlenz P. Clinical indication for intraoperative 3D imaging during open reduction of fractures of the mandibular angle. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41: e87-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.024
  11. 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 conebeam computed tomography in cadavers. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2012; 42: 39-44. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2012.42.2.39
  12. Pertl L, Gashi-Cenkoglu B, Reichmann J, Jakse N, Pertl C. Preoperative assessment of the mandibular canal in implant surgery: comparison of rotational panoramic radiography (OPG), computed tomography (CT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for preoperative assessment in implant surgery. Eur J Oral Implantol 2013; 6: 73-80.
  13. Correa LR, Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Schropp L, da Silveira HE, Wenzel A. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: 690-5.
  14. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  15. Corpas Ldos S, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, Huang Y, Naert I, Duyck J. Peri-implant bone tissue assessment by comparing the outcome of intra-oral radiograph and cone beam computed tomography analyses to the histological standard. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 492-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02029.x
  16. Isidor F. Clinical probing and radiographic assessment in relation to the histologic bone level at oral implants in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8: 255-64. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080402.x
  17. 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
  18. Charyeva O, Altynbekov K, Zhartybaev R, Sabdanaliev A. Long-term dental implant success and survival--a clinical study after an observation period up to 6 years. Swed Dent J 2012; 36: 1-6.
  19. Ritter L, Elger M, Rothamel D, Fienitz T, Zinser M, Schwarz F, et al. Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20130088. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130088
  20. Suomalainen A, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Robinson S. Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging 2015; 6: 1-16.
  21. Tang Z, Liu X, Chen K. Comparison of digital panoramic radiography versus cone beam computerized tomography for measuring alveolar bone. Head Face Med 2017; 13: 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-017-0135-3
  22. Laster WS, Ludlow JB, Bailey LJ, Hershey HG. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy and prediction of asymmetry in panoramic radiographic images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005; 34: 343-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28020783
  23. Choi JW. Assessment of panoramic radiography as a national oral examination tool: review of the literature. Imaging Sci Dent 2011; 41: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2011.41.1.1
  24. Hassan B, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography - 3D imaging in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Eur Med Imaging Rev 2008; 1: 38-40.
  25. Dreiseidler T, Mischkowski RA, Neugebauer J, Ritter L, Zoller JE. Comparison of cone-beam imaging with orthopantomography and computerized tomography for assessment in presurgical implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 216-25.
  26. Sheikhi M, Dakhil-Alian M, Bahreinian Z. Accuracy and reliability of linear measurements using tangential projection and cone beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015; 12: 271-7.
  27. Dalessandri D, Laffranchi L, Tonni I, Zotti F, Piancino MG, Paganelli C, et al. Advantages of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the orthodontic treatment planning of cleidocranial dysplasia patients: a case report. Head Face Med 2011; 7: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-7-6
  28. Kopecka D, Simunek A, Streblov J, Slezak R, Capek L. Measurement of the interantral bone in implant dentistry using panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography: a human radiographic study. West Indian Med J 2014; 63: 503-9.
  29. 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
  30. Angelopoulos C, Thomas S, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek M. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and conebeam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66: 2130-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.06.021
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Tarnow D. Practical application of anatomy for the dental implant surgeon. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 1833-46. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080086

Cited by

  1. Evaluation of Different Preosteotomy Determinants as Affecting the Success of Implant Therapy: A “CBCT”-based Clinical Study vol.20, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2662
  2. A Review of Doses for Dental Imaging in 2010-2020 and Development of a Web Dose Calculator vol.2021, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6924314
  3. Is the panoramic radiography sufficient for detecting the relationship of the posterior maxillary teeth with maxillary sinus floor? A retrospective study comparative with cone-beam computed tomography vol.10, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4103/ijhas.ijhas_281_20