Postoperative imaging of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures using digital volume tomography

Heiland, Max; Schulze, Dirk; Rother, U; Schmelzle, R.

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2004.05.215

Cited by 54 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…37,38 These results have been corroborated in a study of postoperative patients with ZMC fractures, though investigators noted that poorly aerated ethmoidal air cells limit the ability of CBCT to visualize the medial orbital wall. 39 Low bone density in older patients also reduced bony structural definition in their series. Intraoperative efficacy has been evaluated in mandibular fracture fixation as well.…”

Section: Craniofacial Fracturesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Conebeam CT of the Head and Neck, Part 2: Clinical Applications

Miracle¹,

Mukherji²

2009

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

300

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY: Conebeam x-ray CT (CBCT) is being increasingly used for point-of-service head and neck and dentomaxillofacial imaging. This technique provides relatively high isotropic spatial resolution of osseous structures with a reduced radiation dose compared with conventional CT scans. In this second installment in a 2-part review, the clinical applications in the dentomaxillofacial and head and neck regions will be explored, with particular emphasis on diagnostic imaging of the sinuses, temporal bone, and craniofacial structures. Several controversies surrounding the emergence of CBCT technology will also be addressed. C onebeam CT (CBCT) is an advancement in CT imagingthat has begun to emerge as a potentially low-dose crosssectional technique for visualizing bony structures in the head and neck. The physical principles, image quality parameters, and technical limitations relevant to CBCT imaging were discussed in Part 1 of this 2-part series. The second part presented here will highlight the evidence related to CBCT applications in head and neck as well as dentomaxillofacial imaging. Controversial aspects of this technology will also be addressed, including limitations in image quality and its often officebased operational model.CBCT was first adapted for potential clinical use in 1982 at the Mayo Clinic Biodynamics Research Laboratory. 1 Initial interest focused primarily on applications in angiography in which soft-tissue resolution could be sacrificed in favor of high temporal and spatial-resolving capabilities. Since that time, several CBCT systems have been developed for use both in the interventional suite and for general applications in CT angiography. 2,3 Exploration of CBCT technologies for use in radiation therapy guidance began in 1992, 4,5 followed by integration of the first CBCT imaging system into the gantry of a linear accelerator in 1999. 6 The first CBCT system became commercially available for dentomaxillofacial imaging in 2001 (NewTom QR DVT 9000; Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy). Comparatively low dosing requirements and a relatively compact design have also led to intense interest in surgical planning and intraoperative CBCT applications, particularly in the head and neck but also in spinal, thoracic, abdominal, and orthopedic procedures. [7][8][9][10][11] Diagnostic applications in CT mammography and head and neck imaging are also under evaluation. 12-14 The technical and clinical considerations pertaining to CBCT imaging in many of these applications have been the subjects of several recent reviews. [15][16][17][18][19] The recent review by Dörfler et al 16 of the neurointerventional applications of CBCT is of particular interest to the field of neuroradiology.The discussion below will focus on the diagnostic and treatment-planning applications of CBCT in dentomaxillofacial and head and neck imaging. Commercially available CBCT systems for dentomaxillofacial imaging include the CB MercuRay and CB Throne (Hitachi Medical, Kashiwi-shi, Chiba-ken, Japan), 3D Accuitomo products (J. Mor...

show abstract

Section: Craniofacial Fracturesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Conebeam CT of the Head and Neck, Part 2: Clinical Applications

Miracle¹,

Mukherji²

2009

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

300

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cone-beam computed tomography now competes directly with conventional CT, the technology that used to dominate diagnostic-tomographic procedures in orthodontics [11]. The main applications for cone-beam computed tomography are in implant planning [15,16], the depiction of the mandibular nerve channel before surgical wisdom tooth removal [9], and traumatology [5,8]. Hatcher & Aboudara [7] comprehensively described the potential applications of cone-beam computed tomography for orthodontics.…”

Section: Ergebnissementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dieses neue Verfahren steht heute in direkter Konkurrenz zum konventionellen CT, das früher eine dominierende Stellung im Bereich der Schichtdiagnostik einnahm [11]. Hauptanwendungsgebiete für die DVT sind die implantologische Planung [15,16], die Darstellung des Nervkanals der Mandibula vor operativer Entfernung der Weisheitszähne [9] und traumatologische Fragestellungen [5,8]. Für Fragestellungen im kieferorthopädi-schen Bereich haben Hatcher & Aboudara [7] die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten der DVT ausführlich beschrieben.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics: Benefits and Limitations

Holberg¹,

Steinhäuser²,

Geis³

et al. 2005

J Orofac Orthop

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 30.7% (12/39) of the cases, the IAN was located in the superior part of the body of the mandible, and in 69.3% (27/39) of the cases the IAN was half-way or closer to the inferior border of the mandible. In a more recent study with 107 human cadaveric mandibles, the authors found that for 73% of males and 70% of females the IAN was located in the lower half of the mandible, thus showing that the pattern of distribution does not significantly differ between the sexes, between sides of the jaw, or with age [8]. An evaluation of the position of the mandibular foramen and the course of the IAN was performed on 12 right and 14 left cadaveric hemimandibles by Narayana et al [9].…”

Section: Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…3. Adequate dimensions of attached gingiva: even though the presence of attached gingiva is not necessary for the long-term success of oral implants [7], it is certainly desirable [8]. 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Image-Guided Implantology and Bone Assessment

2006

Int J CARS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The medical field is experiencing a robust trend toward minimally invasive surgical procedures This is made possible by the improvement of both diagnostic and operating equipment. In oral implantology this trend is now mainstream thanks to the integration of CT scans, digital treatment planning software and smart oral appliances that exactly transfer the computerized planning to the surgical field. The present prospective clinical study shows how this approach may be useful also in complex, multi-implant cases. Fifty-six Brå nemark System MKIV Tiunite TM implants have been inserted 14 patients with minimally invasive computer-aided implant surgery and followed for 1 year. The implant success rate was 98.3% demonstrating that this approach is a predictable procedure. At the same time intraoperative and postoperative morbidity proved to be minimal leading to a greater patient satisfaction. Keywords Prospective clinical study AE Flapless surgery AE Dental implant AE Computer-aided implantology AE Computed tomography 1 Introduction Two of the most notable trends in modern surgical specialties are minimally invasive surgery [1] and the integration of computerized diagnostics and computer-aided surgery, in its different forms. In oral implantology these two trends are now mainstream in the form on one side of the so called flapless surgery or minimally invasive implant surgery (MIIS) and on the other side of the computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS). Even tough MIIS and CAIS are independent techniques and indeed flapless surgery can be performed in some cases without the aid of the computer and on the other hand a computer-aided approach not always allows a flapless procedure, these two approaches can be very often combined with great advantage. 2 Minimally invasive implant surgery In oral implantology MIIS is not new indeed and was practiced long before the advent of the osseointegration era in the 1960s [2]. Then the technique was abandoned because in contrast to the principles of osseointegration that advocated a submerged healing as a prerequisite for oral implant integration to the bone. When this principle proved to be partially incorrect the flapless approach reappeared in the literature. However in spite of the recent revival studies focusing on the efficacy of MIIS approach are scarce and none of them is a randomized controlled study; nonetheless the results are encouraging [3][4][5]. The most important raison d'ê tre of MIIS is the reduction of patient morbidity through the mini-invasive approach. The advantages of flapless oral implant surgery compared to the open flap approach parallel those of a laparoscopic abdominal surgery compared to a laparotomy. The advantages for the patient are: reduction of surgical time; significant reduction or elimination of postoperative pain, bleeding, edema and ecchymosis; reduction of postoperative functional limitations; optimal esthetics because of absence of scars produced by incisions and respect of papilla integrity [6]. Furthermore the prosthetic phase of an immediate...

show abstract

Postoperative imaging of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures using digital volume tomography

Cited by 54 publications

References 18 publications

Conebeam CT of the Head and Neck, Part 2: Clinical Applications

Conebeam CT of the Head and Neck, Part 2: Clinical Applications

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics: Benefits and Limitations

Image-Guided Implantology and Bone Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About