Does cone-beam CT alter treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative implant planning using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images

Imaging Science in Dentistry

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 121-128

  Guerrero, Maria Eugenia ^a,b   Noriega, Jorge ^c   Castro, Carmen ^c   Jacobs, Reinhilde ^a,b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF IMAGING AND PATHOLOGY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSIDAD DE SAN MARTÍN DE PORRES   (Peru)

Author keywords

Cone beam computed tomography; Dental implants; Panoramic; Radiography

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902481826     PISSN: 22337822     EISSN: 22337830     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5624/isd.2014.44.2.121     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Belser UC, Schmid B, Higginbottom F, Buser D. Outcome analysis of implant restorations located in the anterior maxilla: a review of the recent literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19 Suppl: 30-42.
2. Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7: 329-36.
3. Flanagan D. Important arterial supply of the mandible, control of an arterial hemorrhage, and report of a hemorrhagic incident. J Oral Implantol 2003; 29: 165-73.
4. Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Romanos G, Tarnow D. Clinical recommendations for avoiding and managing surgical complications associated with implant dentistry: a review. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 1317-29.
5. Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, Hirsch E, Schutyser F, Quirynen M, et al. Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional conebeam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 816-21.
6. SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel. Radiation protection No 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Comminssion Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.
7. Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 1243-53.
8. Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam CT and its justified use for planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000 (in press).
9. Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl: 55-77.
10. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Naert I, Quirynen M, Hermans R, Van Steenberghe D. Predictability of reformatted computed tomography for pre-operative planning of endosseous implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 37-41.
11. Vazquez L, Nizam Al Din Y, Christoph Belser U, Combescure C, Bernard JP. Reliability of the vertical magnification factor on panoramic radiographs: clinical implications for posterior mandibular implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1420-5.
12. Vazquez L, Nizamaldin Y, Combescure C, Nedir R, Bischof M, Dohan Ehrenfest DM, et al. Accuracy of vertical height measurements on direct digital panoramic radiographs using posterior mandibular implants and metal balls as reference objects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20110429.
13. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Fieuws S, Willems G. Comparison of two cone beam computed tomographic systems versus panoramic imaging for localization of impacted maxillary canines and detection of root resorption. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33: 93-102.
14. Gerlach NL, Meijer GJ, Maal TJ, Mulder J, Rangel FA, Borstlap WA, et al. Reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods based on cone beam computed tomography in determining the anatomical position of the mandibular canal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68: 811-7.
15. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 81-5.
16. Renton T, Dawood A, Shah A, Searson L, Yilmaz Z. Postimplant neuropathy of the trigeminal nerve. A case series. Br Dent J 2012; 212: E17.
17. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent 2012; 21: 78-86.
18. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Michiles K, Teughels W, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of failures up to abutment connection with modified surface oral implants. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 51-7.
19. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 424-9.
20. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 Suppl 2: 35-51.
21. Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, Kultje C. Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20: 220-30.
22. Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D, Hürzeler MB, Faehn O, Sanavi F, et al. A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 417-23.
23. Lemmerman KJ, Lemmerman NE. Osseointegrated dental implants in private practice: a long-term case series study. J Periodontol 2005; 76: 310-9.
24. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 247-59.
25. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Verstreken K, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Predictability of a three-dimensional planning system for oral implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 105-11.
26. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 490-7.
27. Diniz AF, Mendonça EF, Leles CR, Guilherme AS, Cavalcante MP, Silva MA. Changes in the pre-surgical treatment planning using conventional spiral tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 249-53.
28. Reddy MS, Mayfield-Donahoo T, Vanderven FJ, Jeffcoat MK. A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of panoramic radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994; 5: 229-38.
29. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 265-9.
30. Shelley AM, Brunton P, Horner K. Subjective image quality assessment of cross sectional imaging methods for the symphyseal region of the mandible prior to dental implant placement. J Dent 2011; 39: 764-70.
31. Loubele M, Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. A comparison of jaw dimensional and quality assessments of bone characteristics with cone-beam CT, spiral tomography, and multi-slice spiral CT. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 446-54.
32. Baciut M, Hedesiu M, Bran S, Jacobs R, Nackaerts O, Baciut G. Pre- and postoperative assessment of sinus grafting procedures using cone-beam computed tomography compared with panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 512-6.