A survey of radiographic prescription in dental implant assessment

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 397-400

  Sakakura, C E ^a   Morais, J A N D ^a   Loffredo, L C M ^a   Scaf, Gulnaru ^a  

^a SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Dental implants; Dental radiography; Survey; Tomography, X ray computed

Indexed keywords

BRAZIL; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DENTIST; FACIAL BONE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRESCRIPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RADIATION DOSE; REVIEW; TOOTH IMPLANTATION; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; ECONOMICS; PANORAMIC RADIOGRAPHY; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; RADIOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY; TOOTH;

ANATOMY, CROSS-SECTIONAL; BRAZIL; DENTAL IMPLANTS; DENTIST'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; FACIAL BONES; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; PRESCRIPTIONS, NON-DRUG; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL; RADIOGRAPHY, PANORAMIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TOOTH;

EID: 2542494243     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/20681066     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981; 10: 387-416.
2. Andersson B, Odman P, Lindvall AM, Branemark PI. Five-year prospective study of prosthodontic and surgical single-tooth implant treatment in general practices and at a specialist clinic. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11: 351-355.
3. Engelman MJ, Sorensen JA, Moy P. Optimum placement of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59: 467-473.
4. Stella JP, Tharanon W. A precise radiographic method to determine the location of the inferior alveolar canal in the posterior edentulous mandible: implications for dental implants. Part I: technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5: 15-22.
5. Klinge B, Petersson A, Malay P. Location of the mandibular canal: comparison of macroscopic findings, conventional radiography and computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4: 327-332.
6. Lindh C, Petersson A. Radiologic examination for location of the mandibular canal: a comparison between panoramic radiography and conventional tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4: 249-253.
7. Scaf G, Lurie AG, Mosier KM, Kantor ML, Ramsby GR, Freedman ML. Dosimetry and cost of imaging osseointegrated implants with film-based and computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997; 83: 41-48.
8. ten Bruggenkate CM, van der Linden LW, Oosterbeek HS. Parallelism of implants visualized on the orthopantomogram. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989; 18: 213-215.
9. Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89: 630-637.
10. Beason RC, Brooks SL. Preoperative implant site assessment in southeast Michigan. J Dent Res 2001; 80: 137 (Abstr. 810).
11. Kassebaum DK, Nummikoski PV, Triplett RG, Langlais RP. Cross-sectional radiography for implant site assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990; 70: 674-678.
12. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 92: 458-463.