Assessment of the effect of different imaging techniques on planning implant therapy by different clinicians

Aim: To compare the implant size which was determined by different observers using panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone beamcomputed tomography (CBCT) with inserted implant size.Material and Methods: 194 PAN and CBCT images which belong to 194 patients who were planned to undergone single-tooth implanttherapy were evaluated. 50 anterior regions, 42 premolar regions and 92 molar regions were assessed. These sites were used forplanning of dental implant insertion. Images were analyzed by observers with different education and clinic experience backgrounds:one periodontist (observer 1), one oral and maxillofacial radiologist (observer 2), and one general practitioner (observer 3). Panoramicimages and cross-sectional CBCT images of each patient were examined; differences in length and width of the implant-to-be fromthe two imaging systems were analyzed and compared to inserted implant size.Results: Observer 2 recorded the largest implant width whereas observer 3 recorded narrower implants in PAN. Observer 3 recordedshortest implants than did the other two observers in CBCT and observer 2 recorded narrower implants in CBCT. The CBCTmeasurements allowed a wider implant in the premolar and molar regions. No significant difference was observed between CBCTand PAN in planning the implant length. The inserted implant size was smaller than the measurements made in CBCT.Conclusion: The results show that; different observers present different values in determining implant length and width. The insertedimplant size and the dimensions measured on CBCT and PAN images were different.

PDF

___

1. BouSerhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, t al. Imaging technique selection for the preoperative planning of oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;4:156-72.
2. 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;11:34-8.
3. Harris D, Horner K, Grondahl K, 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.
4. Vazquez L, Nizam Al Din Y, Christoph Belser et al. Reliability of the vertical magnification factor on panoramic radiographs: clinical implications for posterior mandibular implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:1420-5.
5. Reddy MS, Mayfield-Donahoo T, Vanderven FJ, t al. 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.
6. 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;89:630-7.
7. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, et al. State-ofthe-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 2006;10:1-7.
8. Whitesides LM, Aslam-Pervez N, Warburton G. Conebeam computed tomography education and exposure in oral and maxillofacial surgery training programs in the United States. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73:522-8.
9. Deeb G, Antonos L, Tack S, et al. Is Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Always Necessary for Dental Implant Placement? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;75:285-9.
10. Fortes JH, de Oliveira-Santos C, Matsumoto W, et al. Influence of 2D vs 3D imaging and professional experience on dental implant treatment planning. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:929-36.
11. Correa LR, Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, et al. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:690-5.
12. Guerrero ME, Noriega J, Castro C, et al. Does cone-beam CT alter treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative implant planning using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images. Imaging Sci Dent 2014;44:121-8.
13. Luthra KK. Implant success!!!.....simplified. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2009;13:27-9.
14. Dau M, Edalatpour A, Schulze R, et al. Presurgical evaluation of bony implant sites using panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomographyinfluence of medical education. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017;46:20160081.
15. Cushen SE, Turkyilmaz I. Impact of operator experience on the accuracy of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical templates: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:248-54.
16. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, et al. Comparison of panoramic and conventional crosssectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:424-9.