Comparative evaluation of computed tomography for dental implants on the mandibular edentulous area.
- Author:
Kyung Hoon SUN
1
;
Ho Gul JEONG
;
Hyok PARK
;
Chang Seo PARK
;
Kee Deog KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. kdkim@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Tomography, Computed;
Tomography, Cone Beam Computed;
Multidetector-row;
Implant;
Mandible;
Edentulous
- MeSH:
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Dental Implants;
Gutta-Percha;
Humans;
Mandible;
Microcomputers
- From:Korean Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
2009;39(1):27-33
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the recently developed multi-detector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in pre-operative implant evaluation, by comparing them with the single detector computed tomography, already confirmed for accuracy in this area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five partially edentulous dry human mandibles, with 1x1 mm gutta percha cones, placed in 5 mm intervals posterior to the mental foramen on each side of the buccal part of the mandible, were used in this study. They were scanned as follows: 1) Single detector computed tomography: slice thickness 1 mm, 200 mA, 120 kV 2) Multi-detector computed tomography: slice thickness 0.75 mm, 250 mA, 120 kV 3) Cone beam computed tomography: 15 mAs, 120 kV Axial images acquired from three computed tomographies were transferred to personal computer, and then reformatted cross-sectional images were generated using V-Implant 2.0(R) (CyberMed Inc., Seoul, Korea) software. Among the cross-sectional images of the gutta percha cone, placed in the buccal body of the mandible, the most precise cross section was selected as the measuring point and the distance from the most superior border of the mandibular canal to the alveolar crest was measured and analyzed 10 times by a dentist. RESULTS: There were no significant intraobserver differences in the distance from the most superior border of the mandibular canal to the alveolar crest (p>0.05). There were no significant differences among single detector computed tomography, multi-detector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the distance from the most superior border of the mandibular canal to the alveolar crest (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Multi-detector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography are clinically useful in the evaluation of pre-operative site for mandibular dental implants, with consideration for radiation exposure dose and scanning time.
