Dental CT and orthodontic implants: imaging technique and assessment of available bone volume in the hard palate

Applied Anatomic Site Study of Palatal Anchorage Implants Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

“…Clustering results were analyzed using analysis of variance. The correlation of bone mineral density to bone height was determined (Gahleitner et al, 2004).…”

“…In this study, we quantitatively analyzed bone height and bone mineral density of the horizontal plate of the palatine bone using CBCT combined with EZ Implant software (Gahleitner et al, 2004). We have also provided references values to identify a safe, stable and reliable palatal implant placement site.…”

“…Implantation may damage adjacent structures or result in failed implantation. Gahleitner et al measured the palatine bone of 32 patients using dental CT, and found that three patients (9.0%) could not undergo palatal implant anchorage due to insufficient bone height (Gahleitner et al, 2004). King et al confirmed that the most suitable region for palatal implantation was 4.0 mm posterior to and 3.0 mm lateral to the incisive foramen, but was this region was only suitable for a 3.0-mm long implant (King et al, 2006;Oliveira et al, 2008).…”

The Association between Lower Incisal Inclination and Morphology of the Supporting Alveolar Bone — A Cone‐Beam CT Study

“…More importantly the dental CBCT image system has allowed for accurate display of the vertical as well as the important buccal-lingual dimensions of the mandible in actual size (Gahleitner et al, 2003). As a result of the advances in CBCT and software development, dental CBCT now also offers the additional possibility of determining the topographical location of the lower incisors (Gahleitner et al, 2004). It also has the advantage of registering the tooth inclination in various planes.…”

“…It also has the advantage of registering the tooth inclination in various planes. With CBCT, both the lower incisor and its surrounding alveolar bone can be shown in a multiplane, true-to-scale image without distortion, and without the disadvantage of object-related, non-uniform magnifications (Robinson et al, 2002;Gahleitner et al, 2004).…”