Comparison of the Accuracy of Panoramic View in CBCT with Ondemand Software in Determination Indicators Used in Maxillary Posterior Toothless Implants Treatment

Document Type : مقاله‌های پژوهشی

Authors

1 Postgraduate Student, Department of Pediatrics Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

2 Dental Implant Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

4 Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologist, Isfahan, Iran

10.48305/v0i0.1684

Abstract

Introduction: Due to the increasing population of the elderly and the ever-increasing need for evaluating dental implants preoperatively, it is necessary to find a method with the best diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the accuracy of panoramic views of CBCT radiography using Ondemand software in determining the indices used in the implant treatment planning of the edentulous posterior maxilla.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive/analytical study was performed on CBCT radiographs of 43 patients (113 teeth) requiring implants in the archives of a private radiology center. Two panoramic and cross-sectional views were compared in each CBCT radiograph to compare different variables, including ridge height, pathologic entities, septa, and sinus lift requirement. McNemar test and Paired t-test were used for data analysis. The significance level was considered at p value = 0.05.  
Results: The results showed no significant differences in the means and standard deviations of the height of the residual ridge between panoramic and cross-sectional CBCT views in any of the teeth studied (p value = 0.113). Maxillary sinus septa, the need for a sinus lift procedure, and probable pathologic entities were not significantly different between panoramic and cross-sectional CBCT views (p value = 0.99).
Conclusion: Under the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that both panoramic and cross-sectional views are highly accurate in assessing the ridge height, septa, pathologic entities, and need for a sinus lift procedure.
Keywords: Dental implants, Cone-beam computed tomography, Maxillary sinus.

References

1. Sahai S. Recent advances in imaging technologies in implant dentistry. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ 2015; 7(3): 19-26.
2. Saavedra-Abril JA, Balhen-Martin C, Zaragoza-Velasco K, Kimura-Hayama ET, Saavedra S, Stoopen ME. Dental multisection CT for the placement of oral implants: technique and applications. Radiographics 2010; 30(7): 1975-91.
3. Rothman SL, Chaftez N, Rhodes ML, Schwarz MS. CT in the preoperative assessment of the mandible and maxilla for endosseous implant surgery. Work in progress. Radiology 1988; 168(1): 171-5.
4. Schwarz MS, Rothman SL, Rhodes ML, Chafetz N. Computed tomography: Part I. Preoperative assessment of the mandible for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2(3): 137-41.
5. Schwarz MS, Rothman SL, Rhodes ML, Chafetz N. Computed tomography: Part II. Preoperative assessment of the maxilla for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2(3): 143-8.
6. Jivraj S, Chee W, Corrado P. Treatment planning of the edentulous maxilla. Br Dent J 2006; 201(5): 261-79.
7. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980; 38(8): 613-6.
8. Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium 1994; 15(2): 152, 154-6.
9. Tatum OH Jr, Lebowitz MS, Tatum CA, Borgner RA. Sinus augmentation. Rationale, development, long-term results. N Y State Dent J 1993; 59(5): 43-8.
10. Jensen O, Shulman L, Block M, Iacono V. Report of the sinus consensus conference of 1996. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13(Suppl): 11-45.
11. Kirsch A, Ackerman K, Hurzeler M, Hutmacher D. Sinus grafting using porous hydroxyapatite. In: Jensen OT (ed).The Sinus Bone Graft. Chicago: Quintessence, 1998:79–94.
12. Khoury F. Augmentation of the sinus floor with mandibular bone block and simultaneous implantation: a 6-year clinical investigation. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1999; 14(4): 557-64.
13. Ziccardi VB, Betts NJ. Complications of maxillary sinus augmentation. In: Jensen TO, editor. The Sinus Bone Graft. Chicago: Quintessence Publication Co; 1999. pp. 201–8.
14. Wannfors K, Johansson B, Hallman M, Strandkvist T. A prospective randomized study of 1-and 2-stage sinus inlay bone grafts: 1-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15(5): 625-32.
15. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Teradis S, Gnaz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC, et al. Position statement of the american academy of oral and maxillofacial radiology on selection critoria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Patho Oral Radiol 2012; 113(6): 817-26.
16. Hekmatian A, Mehdizaheh M, Iranmanesh P. Comparative evaluation of the distance between the apies of posterior maxillary sinus floor in cross sectional and panoramic view in CBCT. J Isfahan Dent Sch 2014; 10(2): 145-53. [In Persian].
17. Mehdizadeh M, Ahmadi N, Jamshidi M. Evaluation of the relationship between mandibular third molar and mandibular canal by different algorithms of cone-beam computed tomography. J Isfahan Dent Sch 2014; 10(3): 183-90. [In Persian].
18. Mehdizadeh M, Mohammadi A, Mahdian A. Study of Distance Measurement of the Alveolar Crest to Maxillary Sinus Floor on Different Views of CBCT. J Dent Sci 2016; 3: 175-179.
19. Correa LR, Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Schropp L, Silveria HE, Wenzel A. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images,and CBCT cross sectional images. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2014; 25(6): 690-5.
Journal of Isfahan Dental School
Volume 16, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
September 2020
Pages 284-291

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics