Seray KEÇELİ, MEHMET CENK HAYTAÇ, MUSTAFA ÖZCAN

Maksiller posterior bölgede vertikal kemik yüksekliği ölçümlerinde konik-ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi ve panoramik radyografi yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, üst çene posterior bölgede alveolar kemik seviyesi saptamada ve implant planlamalarında kullanılan panoramik radyografiler ile konik-ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) görüntüleme tekniklerinin vertikal kemik yüksekliği ölçümlerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır.Gereç ve Yöntem: Retrospektif olarak yapılan bu çalışmada 99 hastanın maksiller posterior bölgesindeki rezidüel kemik yüksekliği panoromik ve KIBT ile iki ayrı araştırmacı tarafından ölçülerek karşılaştırılmıştır. Aynı zamanda her iki teknikle alınan radyografilerde sinüs septa varlığı da değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Maksiller sinüs ile alveolar kret arası vertikal kemik yüksekliği ölçümlerinde panoramik radyografi ve KIBT değerleri arasında mükemmel-iyi bir korelasyon (r=0.94) olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca KIBT'de tespit edilen septaların yaklaşık yarısı panoromik radyograflarda gözlenememiştir.Sonuç: Panoramik radyografi; posterior maksiller bölgede rutin implant uygulamaları öncesinde güvenli bir görüntüleme yöntemi olarak düşünülebilir. Bu yöntem KIBT'ye göre ucuz, hızlı, kolay ve düşük radyasyon dozuna sahiptir.

The comparison of panoramic radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography for vertical bone height in maxillary posterior area

Aim: The present study aimed to compare panoramic radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) regarding vertical bone height measurements in posterior maxilla for implant treatment planning.Materials and methods: Two independent clinicians measured the residual bone height on the panoromic and CBCT images of 99 patients. In addition the presence of sinus septa was evaluated in this retrospective analysis.Results: The data has shown that panoromic radiographs and CBCT technique had an excellent-good correlation (r=0.94) on the measurements of vertical bone height between maxillary sinus and alveolar bone. In addition, almost half of the septa detected on CBCT images could not be observed on panoromic radiographs. Conclusions: Panoromic radiographs can be considered as a reliable imaging technique which is easier, faster, cheaper and having low-dose of radiation compared to CBCT.

PDF

___

1. Gruber H, Solar P, Ulm C. Maxillomandibular anatomy and patterns of resorption during atrophy. Edosseous Implants: Scientific and clinical aspects. Berlin: Quintessence. 1996:29-63.
2. Sharan A, Madjar D. Maxillary sinus pneumatization following extractions: a radiographic study. J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23(1):48-55.
3. Thomas A, Raman R. A comparative study of the pneumatization of the mastoid air cells and the frontal and maxillary sinuses. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1989;10(5 suppl):S88-S88.
4. Misch L, Misch C. Denture satisfaction--a patient perspective. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;7(2):43.
5. Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Francetti L, Weinstein R. Systematic review of survival rates for implants placed in the grafted maxillary sinus. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(3):266.
6. Emmerich D, Att W, Stappert C. Sinus floor elevation using osteotomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Periodontol 2005;76(8):1237-1251.
7. Temmerman A, Hertelé S, Teughels W, Dekeyser C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Are panoramic images reliable in planning sinus augmentation procedures? Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(2):189-194.
8. Sharan A, Madjar D. Correlation between maxillary sinus floor topography and related root position of posterior teeth using panoramic and cross-sectional computed tomography imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102(3):375-381.
9. Beason R, Brooks S. Preoperative implant site assessment in southeast Michigan. J Dent Res 2001;80:137.
10. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, et al. EAO guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13(5):566-570.
11. Nedbalski TR, Laskin DM. Use of panoramic radiography to predict possible maxillary sinus membrane perforation during dental extraction. Quintessence Int 2008;39(8).
12. 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(1):81-85.
13. Kaya Y, Sencimen M, Sahin S, Okcu KM, Doan N, Bahcecitapar M. Retrospective radiographic evaluation of the anterior loop of the mental nerve: comparison between panoramic radiography and spiral computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(5).
14. Angelopoulos C, Thomas S, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek M. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66(10):2130- 2135.
15. Allen F, Smith DG. An assessment of the accuracy of ridge-mapping in planning implant therapy for the anterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(1):34-38.
16. Veyre-Goulet S, Fortin T, Thierry A. Accuracy of linear measurement provided by cone beam computed tomography to assess bone quantity in the posterior maxilla: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10(4):226- 230.
17. Serhal CB, Jacobs R, Flygare L, Quirynen M, Van Steenberghe D. Perioperative validation of localisation of the mental foramen. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002;31(1):39-43.
18. 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(4):490-497.
19. Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991;20(1):40-42.
20. Maillet M, Bowles WR, McClanahan SL, John MT, Ahmad M. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of maxillary sinusitis. J Endod 2011;37(6):753-757.
21. Tadinada A, Fung K, Thacker S, Mahdian M, Jadhav A, Schincaglia GP. Radiographic evaluation of the maxillary sinus prior to dental implant therapy: A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional radiographic imaging. Imaging Sci Dent 2015;45(3):169-174.
22. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Verstreken K, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Predictability of a three-dimensional planning system for oral implant surgery. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 1999;28(2):105-111.
23. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 2006;10(1):1-7.
24. Kim Y, Park J, Kim S, Kim J, Kim J. Magnification rate of digital panoramic radiographs and its effectiveness for pre-operative assessment of dental implants. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2014.
25. Mckee IW, Glover KE, Williamson PC, Lam EW, Heo G, Major PW. The effect of vertical and horizontal head positioning in panoramic radiography on mesiodistal tooth angulations. Angle Orthod 2001;71(6):442-451.
26. Yeo DKL, Freer T, Brockhurst P. Distortions in panoramic radiographs. Aust Orthod J 2002;18(2):92.
27. Gijbels F, De Meyer A-M, Serhal CB, et al. The subjective image quality of direct digital and conventional panoramic radiography. Clin Oral Investig 2000;4(3):162-167.
28. Gavala S, Donta C, Tsiklakis K, Boziari A, Kamenopoulou V, Stamatakis HC. Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography. Eur J Radiol 2009;71(1):42-48.
29. Danforth RA, Clark DE. Effective dose from radiation ab sorbed during a panoramic examination with a new generation machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89(2):236-243.
30. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radio 2012;81(2):267-271.
31. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106(1):106-114.
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(5):512-516.
33. Underwood AS. An inquiry into the anatomy and pathology of the maxillary sinus. J Anat Physiol 1910;44(Pt 4):354.
34. Ulm CW, Solar P, Krennmair G, Matejka M, Watzek G. Incidence and suggested surgical management of septa in sinus-lift procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10(4).
35. Chanavaz M. Maxillary sinus: anatomy, physiology, surgery, and bone grafting related to implantology-eleven years of surgical experience (1979-1990). J Oral Implantol 1989;16(3):199-209.
36. Krennmair G, Ulm C, Lugmayr H. Maxillary sinus septa: incidence, morphology and clinical implications. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1997;25(5):261-265.
37. Maestre-Ferrín L, Carrillo-García C, Galán-Gil S, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Prevalence, location, and size of maxillary sinus septa: panoramic radiograph versus computed tomography scan. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(2):507-511.
38. González-Santana H, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Guarinos-Carbó J, Sorní-Bröker M. A study of the septa in the maxillary sinuses and the subantral alveolar processes in 30 patients. J Oral Implantol 2007;33(6):340-343.
39. Kasabah S, Slezák R, Simunek A, Krug J, Lecaro MC. Evaluation of the accuracy of panoramic radiograph in the definition of maxillary sinus septa. Acta medica 2002;45(4):173- 176.
40. BouSerhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, Steenberghe D. Imaging technique selection for the preoperative planning of oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;4(3):156-172.