Annika Bertram1, Alexander W Eckert2, Rüdiger Emshoff3,4. 1. Otto Von Guericke University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 2. University Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Martin-Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. 3. University Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. ruediger.emshoff@tirol-kliniken.at. 4. Private Practice, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Freilassing, Germany. ruediger.emshoff@tirol-kliniken.at.
Abstract
BACKGOUND: This study aimed to compare panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) determinations of implant-to-root dimensions (IRD) in anterior and posterior maxillary regions, and to help determine in which instances increased radiation exposure from CBCT scans may be justified. METHODS: IRD measured by PAN (PAN-D) from implant-to-root sites (central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, first premolar, and second premolar) was collected from 418 implant sites in 110 adults. The CBCT technique was used as the reference method for the estimation of IRD. The PAN analysis equations were developed using stepwise multiple regression analysis and the Bland-Altman approach was applied to assess the agreement between PAN and CBCT methods. RESULTS: The odds ratio that an implant at the canine-to-first premolar (9.7:1) (P = 0.000) or at the first premolar-to-second premolar region (4.5:1) (P = 0.000) belongs to the underestimation group was strong and highly significant. The root mean square error (RMSE) and pure error (PE) were highest for the canine-to-first premolar (RMSE = 0.886 mm, PE = 0.45 mm) and the first premolar-to-second premolar region (4.5:1) (RMSE = 0.944 mm, PE = 0.38 mm). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of site-specific underestimations of available horizontal bone dimensions for implants when assessed by PAN. These data suggest that the canines and first and second premolars may have to be excluded when assessing root angulations via PAN.
BACKGOUND: This study aimed to compare panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) determinations of implant-to-root dimensions (IRD) in anterior and posterior maxillary regions, and to help determine in which instances increased radiation exposure from CBCT scans may be justified. METHODS: IRD measured by PAN (PAN-D) from implant-to-root sites (central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, first premolar, and second premolar) was collected from 418 implant sites in 110 adults. The CBCT technique was used as the reference method for the estimation of IRD. The PAN analysis equations were developed using stepwise multiple regression analysis and the Bland-Altman approach was applied to assess the agreement between PAN and CBCT methods. RESULTS: The odds ratio that an implant at the canine-to-first premolar (9.7:1) (P = 0.000) or at the first premolar-to-second premolar region (4.5:1) (P = 0.000) belongs to the underestimation group was strong and highly significant. The root mean square error (RMSE) and pure error (PE) were highest for the canine-to-first premolar (RMSE = 0.886 mm, PE = 0.45 mm) and the first premolar-to-second premolar region (4.5:1) (RMSE = 0.944 mm, PE = 0.38 mm). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of site-specific underestimations of available horizontal bone dimensions for implants when assessed by PAN. These data suggest that the canines and first and second premolars may have to be excluded when assessing root angulations via PAN.
Authors: Sergio Lins de-Azevedo-Vaz; Priscila Dias Peyneau; Laura Ricardina Ramirez-Sotelo; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Paulo Sérgio Flores Campos; Francisco Haiter-Neto Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Date: 2016-01-28
Authors: M Loubele; R Jacobs; F Maes; K Denis; S White; W Coudyzer; I Lambrichts; D van Steenberghe; P Suetens Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.419