João Henrique Fortes1, Christiano de Oliveira-Santos2, Wilson Matsumoto1, Raphael Jurca Gonçalves da Motta1, Camila Tirapelli3. 1. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, 14040-904, Brazil. 2. Departament of Stomatology, Public Health, and Forensic Dentistry, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, 14040-904, Brazil. 3. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, 14040-904, Brazil. catirapelli@forp.usp.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether professional experience and type of image examination (panoramic radiography (PAN) or cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)) could influence the pre-surgical planning for dental implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six dentists, from two different levels of experience (senior (Sr) and junior (Jr)) performed simulated pre-surgical planning by using PANs and after 1 month, by using CBCTs, considering implant length (IL), implant width (IW), need for bone graft (BG), and other surgical procedures (OP). Bland-Altman test and Kappa coefficient were used to identify agreements. RESULTS: Bland-Altman test showed good agreement in the plans for inter-professional (i.e., Sr vs Jr) comparisons. Bland-Altman plots displayed intra-observer agreement (i.e., differences between PAN and CBCT), showing discrepancy between imaging modalities for IL and a tendency towards selecting larger dental implant options when using PAN and smaller options with CBCT. Kappa showed almost perfect (0.81-1.0) agreement between Jr and Sr for OP (PAN and CBCT). For BG, agreement was substantial (0.61-0.80) when planning was done with PAN and CBCT. Descriptive statistics showed evidence that when Jrs used CBCT, they no longer indicated the BG they had planned when they used PAN. CONCLUSION: There were differences in the pre-surgical planning for treatment with dental implants depending on the professional experience and the type of imaging examination used. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Variation in dental implant planning can affect treatment time, cost, and morbidity in patients.
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether professional experience and type of image examination (panoramic radiography (PAN) or cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)) could influence the pre-surgical planning for dental implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six dentists, from two different levels of experience (senior (Sr) and junior (Jr)) performed simulated pre-surgical planning by using PANs and after 1 month, by using CBCTs, considering implant length (IL), implant width (IW), need for bone graft (BG), and other surgical procedures (OP). Bland-Altman test and Kappa coefficient were used to identify agreements. RESULTS: Bland-Altman test showed good agreement in the plans for inter-professional (i.e., Sr vs Jr) comparisons. Bland-Altman plots displayed intra-observer agreement (i.e., differences between PAN and CBCT), showing discrepancy between imaging modalities for IL and a tendency towards selecting larger dental implant options when using PAN and smaller options with CBCT. Kappa showed almost perfect (0.81-1.0) agreement between Jr and Sr for OP (PAN and CBCT). For BG, agreement was substantial (0.61-0.80) when planning was done with PAN and CBCT. Descriptive statistics showed evidence that when Jrs used CBCT, they no longer indicated the BG they had planned when they used PAN. CONCLUSION: There were differences in the pre-surgical planning for treatment with dental implants depending on the professional experience and the type of imaging examination used. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Variation in dental implant planning can affect treatment time, cost, and morbidity in patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cone beam tomography; Dental implants; Digital dentistry; Professional experience; Treatment plan
Authors: David Harris; Daniel Buser; Karl Dula; Kerstin Grondahl; David Haris; Reinhilde Jacobs; Ulf Lekholm; Richard Nakielny; Daniel van Steenberghe; Paul van der Stelt Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Donald A Tyndall; Jeffery B Price; Sotirios Tetradis; Scott D Ganz; Charles Hildebolt; William C Scarfe Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Date: 2012-06
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
Authors: Leticia Ruhland Correa; Rubens Spin-Neto; Andreas Stavropoulos; Lars Schropp; Heloísa Emília Dias da Silveira; Ann Wenzel Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Maris Victoria Olmedo-Gaya; Francisco J Manzano-Moreno; Esther Cañaveral-Cavero; Juan de Dios Luna-del Castillo; Manuel Vallecillo-Capilla Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Lori A Stolz; Anthony R Cappa; Michael R Minckler; Uwe Stolz; Ryan G Wyatt; Carl W Binger; Richard Amini; Srikar Adhikari Journal: J Vasc Access Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 2.283