Reliability of Orthopantomography and Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Clinical Study

Abstract

Background: Preoperative diagnosis and treatment planning are fundamental requirements to ensure success rate of implant. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides all three dimensions and has been proved as a tool for radiology, especially in the success of implant. This study was conducted to evaluate the reliability of orthopantomography (OPG) and CBCT in presurgical implant planning. Materials and methods:The study was conducted on 110 partially or completely edentulous adult patients (male 50 and female 60). Patient information regarding name, age, gender, and so forth was recorded. Thorough clinical examination was done to locate the edentulous site for the placement of implant. All patients were subjected to OPG and CBCT.The OPG was taken with digital panoramic unit (Planmeca) operating at 120 kVp, 2 mA, and exposure time of 17 seconds. The CBCT was taken using NewTom machine with field of view 11 × 8 cm and resolution of 0.3 × 0.3 × 0.3 mm operating at 120 kVp at 5 mA. NNT software with slice thickness of 0.1 mm was used in this study.Measurement of bone height and distance from anatomical structures was done on OPG, whereas bone height and bone width were measured on CBCT scan in all three planes, such Results: The present study comprised 110 patients (male 50 and female 60). About 102 (16.7%) implants were placed in anterior region, and 508 (83.3%) implants were placed in posterior region. Implant site was incisor region (55), canine (30), premolar (250), and molar (275). The difference was significant (p < 0.01). Variations are usually observed in presurgical planning with CBCT and OPG. The length and width of implant remained unchanged in 90 and 85% of the cases respectively. In 8% of cases, OPG revealed more length of implant than CBCT, whereas only in 2% cases CBCT revealed more length of implant than OPG. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). When we compared the diameter, OPG revealed more diameter in 10% of cases, whereas CBCT only revealed 5% of cases. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). Observer found CBCT as effective in 95% of cases and ineffective in only 5% of cases, whereas OPG was effective in 78% of cases and ineffective in 22% of cases. The different was significant (p < 0.05). Reliability of Orthopantomography and Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Presurgical Implant Conclusion:The CBCT being three-dimensional provides detailed information that two-dimensional radiographs cannot offer, which aids in precision to further improve the entire implant process.Clinical significance: In recent times, implant has become the treatment of choice for edentulous patients. The CBCT has increased the success rate of implant due to its high resolution, ability to demonstrate anatomical structures more effectively than other radiographic diagnostic tools.

Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket

“…In this study, panoramic radiogram was used to measure bone height at the distal surface of the mandibular second molar. Panoramic radiograms have different magnification ratios according to the anatomic site [21]. The shape of jaw bones may also influence image sharpness.…”

“…The shape of jaw bones may also influence image sharpness. Compared to cone-beam computerized tomograms (CBCT), error due to image distortion is higher in panoramic radiograms [21]. However, measurement in panoramic radiographs is highly correlated with that in CBCT and can be used in the posterior alveolus of the mandible [22].…”

Use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Periodontology

“…KIBT, iki boyutlu görüntüleme yöntemi olan panoramik ve periapikal radyografi göre kemik doku hakkında ayrıntılı değerlendirme imkanı sağlar [46][47] . KIBT ile implant yapılacak alanda mevcut olan kemiğin kalitesi, miktarı ve çevre anatomik oluşumlar (inferior alveolar kanal, mental foramen, burun boşluğu, insisiv foramen, maksiller sinüs vb.)…”

Indications for 3-D diagnostics and navigation in dental implantology with the focus on radiation exposure: a systematic review

“…High-quality imaging of the bone and surrounding anatomical structures is necessary for proper diagnosis, implant-planning, and implant placement. In many cases, two-dimensional (2-D) radiographic images are sufficient; however, if all relevant anatomical structures cannot be evaluated, or if further information is needed [1,2], three-dimensional (3-D) imaging might be helpful [3].…”