OBJECTIVES: To compare 2D CT alone with 2D + 3D reconstruction for pre-operative planning of implant placement. METHODS: Spiral CT scans of 33 consecutive patients were used for both reformatted 2D and 3D computer-assisted planning. The number, site and size of implants and the occurrence of anatomical complications during planning and implant placement were statistically compared using the percentage agreement and the Kendall's correlation coefficients (tau). Although planning was performed in 33 patients, implants were only placed in 21 patients. In 11 patients surgery was based on 2D + 3D imaging and in ten patients on 2D planning. RESULTS: Agreement between planning and placement of implants was highly significant for the implant sites selected. For 2D based planning and placement, agreement reached 68% (tau = 0.94). For 2D + 3D based planning and placement, agreement attained 73% (tau = 0.89). For planning and placement of implant size based on 2D images, agreement was 31% and not significant (tau = 0.23). When based on 2D + 3D images, agreement for implant size was 44% (tau = 0.5). Agreement was not significant for anatomical complications: 69% for 2D planning and 71% for 2D + 3D planning (tau = 0.24 for 2D and tau = 0.21 for 2D + 3D). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D planning system is a reliable tool for pre-operative assessment of implant placement. Both 2D and 2D + 3D planning have a good predictability for the number and site of the implants but less so for anatomical complications. However, the 2D + 3D planning provides a better pre-operative assessment of implant size.
OBJECTIVES: To compare 2D CT alone with 2D + 3D reconstruction for pre-operative planning of implant placement. METHODS: Spiral CT scans of 33 consecutive patients were used for both reformatted 2D and 3D computer-assisted planning. The number, site and size of implants and the occurrence of anatomical complications during planning and implant placement were statistically compared using the percentage agreement and the Kendall's correlation coefficients (tau). Although planning was performed in 33 patients, implants were only placed in 21 patients. In 11 patients surgery was based on 2D + 3D imaging and in ten patients on 2D planning. RESULTS: Agreement between planning and placement of implants was highly significant for the implant sites selected. For 2D based planning and placement, agreement reached 68% (tau = 0.94). For 2D + 3D based planning and placement, agreement attained 73% (tau = 0.89). For planning and placement of implant size based on 2D images, agreement was 31% and not significant (tau = 0.23). When based on 2D + 3D images, agreement for implant size was 44% (tau = 0.5). Agreement was not significant for anatomical complications: 69% for 2D planning and 71% for 2D + 3D planning (tau = 0.24 for 2D and tau = 0.21 for 2D + 3D). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D planning system is a reliable tool for pre-operative assessment of implant placement. Both 2D and 2D + 3D planning have a good predictability for the number and site of the implants but less so for anatomical complications. However, the 2D + 3D planning provides a better pre-operative assessment of implant size.
Authors: Maria Eugenia Guerrero; Reinhilde Jacobs; Miet Loubele; Filip Schutyser; Paul Suetens; Daniel van Steenberghe Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2006-02-16 Impact factor: 3.573