Reliability of spiral tomography for implant site measurement of the mandible.
- Author:
Kee Deog KIM
1
;
Chang Seo PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Dental Radiology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- MeSH:
Mandible*;
Radiography, Dental, Digital;
Stents
- From:Journal of Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
1997;27(2):27-48
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and usefulness of spiral tomography through the comparison and analysis of SCANORA cross-sectional tomographs and DentaScan computed tomographic images of dry mandibles taken by a SCANORA spiral tomographic machine and a computed tomographic machine. Thirty-one dry mandibles with full or partial edentulous areas were used. To evaluate the possible effect of location in the edentulous area, it was divided into 4 regions of Me (region of mental foramen), M1 (the midportion between Me and M2), M2 (the midportion between mental foramen and mandibular foramen) and S (the midportion of the mandibular symphysis). A ZPC column (sized 4 mm X 5 mm) was seated on the edentulous regions of Me, M1, M2 and S using the acrylic stent. Then SCANORA spiral tomography and computed tomography were taken on the edentulous regions which contained the ZPC column. The ZPC columns and cross-sectional images of the mandible were measured in the radiographs by three observers and the differences between the two imaging modalities were analysed. The results were as follows: 1. In comparing the actual measurements of the ZPC column and measurements in the radiographs, the mean error of the DentaScan computed tomography was 0.07 mm in vertical direction and -0.06 mm in horizontal direction, while the mean error of the SCANORA spiral tomography was 0.06 mm in vertical direction and -0.12 mm in horizontal direction. There was a significant difference between the two radiographic techniques in the horizontal measurement of the ZPC column of the symphysis region (p<0.05). but there was no significant difference in the measurements of other regions>0.05). 2. In measurements of the distance from the alveolar crest to the inferior border of the mandible (H), and of the distance from the alveolar crest to the superior border of the mandibular canal (Y), there was no significant difference between the two radiographic techniques (p>0.05). 3. In measurements of the distance from the lingual border of the mandible to the buccal border of the mandible (W), and of the distance from the lingual border of the mandible to the lingual border of the mandibular canal (X), there was a significant difference between the two radiographic techniques in measurements of the midportion between the mental foramen and the mandibular foramen (M2) (p<0.05). but there were no significant differences in measurements of the other regions of symphysis>0.05). 4. Considering the mean range of measurements between observers, the measurements of SCANORA spiral tomography showed higher value than those of DentaScan computed tomography, except in measurements of symphysis (S). 5. On the detectability of the mandibular canal, there was no significant difference between the two radiographic techniques (p>0.05). In conclusion, SCANORA spiral tomography demonstrated a higher interobserver variance than that of DentaScan computed tomography for implant site measurements in the posterior edentulous area of the mandible. These differences were mainly the result of difficulty in the detection of the border of the mandible in SCANORA spiral tomography. But considering the cost and the radiation exposure, SCANORA spiral tomography can be said to be relatively good radiographic technique for implant site measurement.
