Reliability of two different presurgical preparation methods for implant dentistry based on panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in cadavers.
10.5051/jpis.2012.42.2.39
- Author:
Kyung Seok HU
1
;
Da Yae CHOI
;
Won Jae LEE
;
Hee Jin KIM
;
Ui Won JUNG
;
Sungtae KIM
Author Information
1. Division in Anatomy and Histology, Department of Oral Biology, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Complications;
Cone-beam computed tomography;
Dental Implantation;
Panoramic radiography
- MeSH:
Cadaver;
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Dental Implantation;
Dentistry;
Dentists;
Equipment and Supplies;
Humans;
Hypogonadism;
Maxilla;
Mitochondrial Diseases;
Ophthalmoplegia;
Radiography, Panoramic;
Tooth
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2012;42(2):39-44
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Special care is necessary to avoid invading important anatomic structures during surgery when presurgical planning is made based on radiographs. However, none of these types of radiography represents a perfect modality. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of presurgical planning based on the use of two types of radiographic image (digital panoramic radiography [DPR] and cone-beam computed tomography [CBCT]) by beginner dentists to place implants, and to quantify differences in measurements between radiographic images and real specimens. METHODS: Ten fresh cadavers without posterior teeth were used, and twelve practitioners who had no experience of implant surgery performed implant surgery after 10 hours of basic instruction using conventional surgical guide based on CBCT or DPR. Two types of measurement error were evaluated: 1) the presurgical measurement error, defined as that between the presurgical and postsurgical measurements in each modality of radiographic analysis, and 2) the measurement error between postsurgical radiography and the real specimen. RESULTS: The mean presurgical measurement error was significantly smaller for CBCT than for DPR in the maxillary region, whereas it did not differ significantly between the two imaging modalities in the mandibular region. The mean measurement error between radiography and real specimens was significantly smaller for CBCT than for DPR in the maxillary region, but did not differ significantly in the mandibular region. CONCLUSIONS: Presurgical planning can be performed safely using DPR in the mandible; however, presurgical planning using CBCT is recommended in the maxilla when a structure in a buccolingual location needs to be evaluated because this imaging modality supplies buccolingual information that cannot be obtained from DPR.
