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

Guerrero ME, Noriega J, Castro C, Jacobs R - Imaging Sci Dent (2014)

Bottom Line: Imaging consisted of PAN and CBCT imaging.However, significant differences were found in the length of implants with a posterior location.CBCT provided images with improved scores for subjective image quality and surgical confidence levels.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: OIC, OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. ; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium.

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 datasets 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.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The implant planning process is performed using panoramic radiography (PAN) (A) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). (B) Images of a 32-year-old woman. After careful evaluation of the 3D data, an appropriate treatment plan is developed, as seen in the cross-sectional images. The bone width is not evident on the PAN image, whereas a possible fenestration can be predicted thanks to the availability of CBCT.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4061295&req=5

Figure 1: The implant planning process is performed using panoramic radiography (PAN) (A) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). (B) Images of a 32-year-old woman. After careful evaluation of the 3D data, an appropriate treatment plan is developed, as seen in the cross-sectional images. The bone width is not evident on the PAN image, whereas a possible fenestration can be predicted thanks to the availability of CBCT.

Mentions: For observing the PAN images, the Digora® for Windows 2.7 software (Digora, Soredex, Tuusula, Finland) was used for implant planning. The values were corrected for the "true" magnification factors of the panoramic radiographs (Fig. 1).


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

Guerrero ME, Noriega J, Castro C, Jacobs R - Imaging Sci Dent (2014)

The implant planning process is performed using panoramic radiography (PAN) (A) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). (B) Images of a 32-year-old woman. After careful evaluation of the 3D data, an appropriate treatment plan is developed, as seen in the cross-sectional images. The bone width is not evident on the PAN image, whereas a possible fenestration can be predicted thanks to the availability of CBCT.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4061295&req=5

Figure 1: The implant planning process is performed using panoramic radiography (PAN) (A) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). (B) Images of a 32-year-old woman. After careful evaluation of the 3D data, an appropriate treatment plan is developed, as seen in the cross-sectional images. The bone width is not evident on the PAN image, whereas a possible fenestration can be predicted thanks to the availability of CBCT.
Mentions: For observing the PAN images, the Digora® for Windows 2.7 software (Digora, Soredex, Tuusula, Finland) was used for implant planning. The values were corrected for the "true" magnification factors of the panoramic radiographs (Fig. 1).

Bottom Line: Imaging consisted of PAN and CBCT imaging.However, significant differences were found in the length of implants with a posterior location.CBCT provided images with improved scores for subjective image quality and surgical confidence levels.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: OIC, OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. ; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium.

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 datasets 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.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus