The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 7 - 15 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 İndeks Tarihi: 08-11-2020
The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning
Öz: Objective: Width, height, density and morphology ofalveolar bone must be carefully examined before the surgical intervention for a successful implant treatment. The panoramic radiography(OPG) is the most frequently used method that is employed by large majority of dentists in dental implant planning. The purpose of this studyis, to evaluate the consistency of OPG and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) alveolar height measurements at different recipientsites in dental implant planning. Material and Methods: The presentstudy was carried out on the OPG and CBCT images of 206 patients.Using the radiological data of subjects, 752 edentulous implant siteswere specified. These areas were classified into 3 groups based on theproximity to certain anatomical landmarks, which were “maxillary sinus(MS)”, “mental foramen (MF)” and “nasal floor (NF)”. Bone distancesbetween anatomical points and alveolar crest were measured on the OPGand CBCT cross-sectional images. Results: In MS group, the correlationbetween OPG and CBCT was 0.968 (p<0.001). The correlation betweenOPG and CBCT was 0.860 in MS-II subgroup (p<0.001). The correlation between OPG and CBCT was 0.950 in MF-I subgroup (p<0.001)and 0.932 in MF-II subgroup (p<0.001). The correlation between OPGand CBCT was 0.965 in NF group (p<0.001). Conclusion: OPG is asafe method in measuring the vertical bone distance on maxillary sinusregion for implant planning. However, it might not be safely used onthe mental foramen and nasal floor regions.
Anahtar Kelime: Dental İmplant Tedavi Planlamasında Panaromik Radyografinin Farklı Bölgelerdeki Güvenilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi
Öz: Amaç: İmplant cerrahisi öncesi alveolar kemiğin genişliği, boyu ve yoğunluğu dikkatli bir şekilde değerlendirilmelidir. Diş hekimlerinin büyük çoğunluğu implant planlamasında panoromik radyografileri (OPG) kullanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı dental implant planlamasında farklı alıcı bölgelerin boyutunun değerlendirilmesinde OPG ve konik ışınlı volumetric tomografi (KIVT) arasındaki uyumun değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada 206 hastanın OPG ve KIVT görüntüleri kullanılmıştır. Radyolojik arşivinden, 752 dişsiz implant bölgesi çalışma için seçilmiştir. Bu alanlar ilgili anatomik bölgelere yakınlığına göre maksiller sinus (MS), mental foramen (MF) ve nasal taban (NT) olarak üç gruba ayrılmıştır. Anatomik noktalar ile alveolar kret arası mesafe OPG ve KIVT üzerinde ölçülmüştür. Bulgular: MS grubunda OPG ve KIVT arasındaki korelasyon 0,968 olarak bulunmuştur (p<0,001). MS-II alt grubunda ise OPG ve KIVT arasındaki korelasyon 0,860 olarak bulunmuştur (p<0,001). MF I ve II grubunda ise OPG ve KIVT arasındaki korelasyon sırasıyla 0,950 ve 0,932 olarak bulunmuştur (p<0,001). NF grubunda OPG ve KIVT arasındaki korelasyon 0,965 olarak bulunmuştur (p<0,001). Sonuç: MS bölgesinde implant planlamasında OPG tek başına güvenle kullanılabillir. Ancak, MF ve NT bölgesinde sadece OPG ile ölçüm yapılması güvenli olmayabilir.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- 1. Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Ekestubbe A, Helmrot E, Gröndahl K. Calculating effective dose on a cone beam computed tomography device: 3D Accuitomo and 3D Accuitomo FPD. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(2):72-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 2. Shahbazian M, Vandewoude C, Wyatt J, Jacobs R. Comparative assessment of panoramic radiography and CBCT imaging for radiodiagnostics in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(1):293-300. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 3. Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;89(5):630-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 4. Bamgbose BO, Adeyemo WL, Ladeinde AL, Ogunlewe MO. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT): the new vista in oral and maxillofacial imaging. Niger Q J Hosp Med. 2007;18(1):32-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 5. Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(1):10-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 6. BouSerhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Imaging technique selection for the preoperative planning of oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4(3):156-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 7. 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. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 8. Casselman JW, Deryckere F, Hermans R, Declercq C, Neyt L, Pattyn G, et al. Denta scan: CT software program used in the anatomic evaluation of the mandible and maxilla in the perspective of endosseous implant surgery. Rofo. 1991;155(1):4-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 9. Bolin A, Ellasson S, von Beetzen M, Jansson L. Radiographic evaluation of mandibular posterior implant sites: correlation between panoramic and tomographic determinations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 199;7(4):354-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 10. Temmerman A, Hertelé S, Teughels W, Dekeyser C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Are panoramic images reliable in planning sinus augmentation procedures? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(2):189-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 11. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(5):566-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 12. 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(1):81-5. [PubMed]
- 13. Kaya Y, Sencimen M, Sahin, S, Okcu KM, Dogan M, 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. [PubMed]
- 14. Angelopoulos C, Thomas SL, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek N. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66(10):2130-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 15. Peker I, Alkurt MT, Mihcioglu 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. [PubMed]
- 16. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Verstreken K, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Predicatability of a three-dimensional planning system for implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;28(2):105-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 17. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State of the art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Invest. 2006;10(1):1-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 18. Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, Hirsch E, Schutyser F, Quirynen M, et al. Accuracy of implant placement based on presurgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34(9):816-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 19. Lofthag-Hansen S, Grondahl K, Ekestubbe A. Cone-beam CT for preoperative implant planning in the posterior mandible: visibility of anatomic landmarks. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009;11(3):246-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 20. Veyre-Goulet S, Fortin T, Thierry A. Accuracy of linear measurement provided by cone beam computed tomography to assess bone quantity in the posterior maxilla: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008;10(4):226-30. [PubMed]
- 21. Mckee IW, Glover KE, Williamson PC, Lam EW, Heo G, Major PW. The effect of vertical and horizontal head positioning in panoramic radiography on mesiodistal tooth angulations. Angle Orthod. 2001;71(6):442-51. [PubMed]
- 22. Yeo DK, Freer TJ, Brockhurst PJ. Distortions in panoramic radiographs. Aust Orthod J. 2002;18(2):92-8. [PubMed]
- 23. Kamrun N, Tetsumura A, Nomura Y, Yamaguchi S, Baba O, Nakamura S, et al. Visualization of the superior and inferior borders of the mandibular canal: a comparative study using digital panoramic radiographs and cross-sectional computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115(4):550-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 24. Yosue T, Brooks SL. The appearance of mental foramina on panoramic and periapical radiographs. II. Experimental evaluation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1989;68(4):488- 92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 25. de Oliveira-Santos C, Souza PH, de Azambuja Berti-Couto S, Stinkens L, Moyaert K, Rubira-Bullen IR, et al. Assessment of variations of the mandibular canal through cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(2):387-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 26. 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(5):50-9. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- 27. Raghoebar GM, van Weissenbruch R, Vissink A. Rhino-sinusitis related to endosseous implants extending into the nasal cavity: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;33(3):312-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 28. Dagassan-Berndt DC, Zitzmann NU, Walter C, Schulze RK. Implant treatment planning regarding augmentation procedures: panoramic radiographs vs. cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;0:27(8);1010-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 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(2): 265-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 30. Carter JB, Stone JD, Clark RS, Mercer JE. Applications of cone-beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery: an overview of published indications and clinical usage in United States academic centers and oral and maxillofacial surgery practices. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(4):668-79. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 31. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106(1):106-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 32. Hirsch E, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Silva MA. Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(5):268-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 33. Rottke D, Patzelt S, Poxleitner P, Schulze D. Effective dose span of ten different cone beam CT devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(7):20120417. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- 34. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC; American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;113(6):817-26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 35. Torres MG, Campos PS, Segundo NP, Navarro M, Crusoé-Rebello I. Accuracy of linear measurements in cone beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes. Implant Dent. 2012;21(2):150-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 36. Luangchana P, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S, Kiattavorncharoen S, Jirajariyavej B. Accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in dental implant treatment planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(6):1287- 94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
| APA | ÜNSAL H, BAŞ B (2020). The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. , 7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| Chicago | ÜNSAL Haluk Yener,BAŞ BURCU The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. (2020): 7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| MLA | ÜNSAL Haluk Yener,BAŞ BURCU The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. , 2020, ss.7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| AMA | ÜNSAL H,BAŞ B The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. . 2020; 7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| Vancouver | ÜNSAL H,BAŞ B The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. . 2020; 7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| IEEE | ÜNSAL H,BAŞ B "The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning." , ss.7 - 15, 2020. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| ISNAD | ÜNSAL, Haluk Yener - BAŞ, BURCU. "The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning". (2020), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| APA | ÜNSAL H, BAŞ B (2020). The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. Türkiye Klinikleri Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi, 26(1), 7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| Chicago | ÜNSAL Haluk Yener,BAŞ BURCU The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. Türkiye Klinikleri Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi 26, no.1 (2020): 7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| MLA | ÜNSAL Haluk Yener,BAŞ BURCU The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. Türkiye Klinikleri Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi, vol.26, no.1, 2020, ss.7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| AMA | ÜNSAL H,BAŞ B The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. Türkiye Klinikleri Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020; 26(1): 7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| Vancouver | ÜNSAL H,BAŞ B The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning. Türkiye Klinikleri Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020; 26(1): 7 - 15. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| IEEE | ÜNSAL H,BAŞ B "The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning." Türkiye Klinikleri Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi, 26, ss.7 - 15, 2020. 10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
| ISNAD | ÜNSAL, Haluk Yener - BAŞ, BURCU. "The Reliability of Panoramic Radiographs for Different Recipient Sites in Dental Implant Treatment Planning". Türkiye Klinikleri Diş Hekimliği Bilimleri Dergisi 26/1 (2020), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.5336/dentalsci.2019-65809 |
