Literature DB >> 9571835

Radiographic modalities for diagnosis and treatment planning in implant dentistry.

A K Garg1, A Vicari.   

Abstract

Early in the development of implant technology it became apparent that conventional dental imaging techniques were limited for evaluating patients for implant surgery. During the treatment planning phase, the recipient bed is routinely assessed by visual examination and palpation, as well as by periapical and panoramic radiology. These two imaging modalities provide a two-dimensional image of mesial-distal and occlusal-apical dimensions of the edentulous regions where implants might be placed. When adequate occlusal-apical bone height is available for endosteal implants, the buccal-lingual width and angulation of the available bone are the most important criteria for implant selection and success. However, neither buccal-lingual width nor angulation can be visualized on most traditional radiographs. Although clinical examination and traditional radiographs may be adequate for patients with wide residual ridges that exhibit sufficient bone crestal to the mandibular nerve and maxillary sinus, these methods do not allow for precise measurement of the buccolingual dimension of the bone or assessment of the location of unanticipated undercuts. For these concerns, it is necessary to view the recipient site in a plane perpendicular to a curved plane through the arch of the maxilla or mandible in the region of the proposed implants. Implant dentists soon recognized that, for optimum placement of implants, cross-sectional views of the maxilla and mandible were the ideal means of providing necessary pre-operative information. Today, the two most often employed and most applicable radiographic studies for implant treatment planning are the panoramic radiograph and tomography. Although distortion can be a major problem with panoramic radiographs, when performed properly they can provide valuable information, and are both readily accessible and cost efficient. To help localize potential implant sites and assist in obtaining accurate measurements, it is recommended that surgical stents be used with panoramic radiographs. In simple cases, where a limited number of implants are to be placed, panoramic radiography and/or tomography may be used to obtain a view of the arch of the jaw in the area of interest. For complex, cases, where multiple implants are required, the CT scan imaging procedure is recommended. Because of its ability to reconstruct a fully three dimensional model of the maxilla and mandible, CT provides a highly sophisticated format for precisely defining the jaw structure and locating critical anatomic structures. The use of CT scans in conjunction with software that renders immediate "treatment plans" using the most real and accurate information provides the most effective radiographic modality currently available for the evaluation of patients for oral implants. To follow patients after implant surgery, DSR can be helpful by addressing the limitations of other radiographic modalities in detecting postoperative changes. By eliminating unchanged information, DSR allows the clinician's eye to focus on actual changes that have occurred between the recordings of two images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 9571835

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Implant Soc        ISSN: 1059-3489


  11 in total

1.  Evaluation of the morphological changes in the mandible for dentate and totally edentate elderly population using cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Ummühan Tozoğlu; Binali Cakur
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 1.246

Review 2.  Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review.

Authors:  Attila Horváth; Nikos Mardas; Luis André Mezzomo; Ian G Needleman; Nikos Donos
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Visibility of mandibular canal on panoramic radiograph after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO).

Authors:  Constantinus Politis; Xiomara Botero Ramírez; Yi Sun; Ivo Lambrichts; Neil Heath; Jimoh Olubanwo Agbaje
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 1.246

4.  Cone beam computed tomography in dentomaxillofacial radiology: a two-decade overview.

Authors:  Hugo Gaêta-Araujo; Tamara Alzoubi; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Kaan Orhan; Ruben Pauwels; Jan W Casselman; Reinhilde Jacobs
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  Anterior maxilla alveolar ridge dimension and morphology measurement by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for immediate implant treatment planning.

Authors:  Wenjian Zhang; Adam Skrypczak; Robin Weltman
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 2.757

6.  Accuracy of densitometry of two cone beam computed tomography equipment in comparison with computed tomography.

Authors:  Sina Haghanifar; Sajad Yousefi; Ehsan Moudi; Farida Abesi; Ali Bijani; Ali Akbar Moghadamnia; Mehrdad Nabahati
Journal:  Electron Physician       Date:  2017-05-25

7.  Pain sensation and postsurgical complications in posterior mandibular implant placement using ridge mapping, panoramic radiography, and infiltration anesthesia.

Authors:  Ali Saad Thafeed Alghamdi
Journal:  ISRN Dent       Date:  2013-05-21

8.  The effect of mandibular buccal tilting on the accuracy of posterior mandibular spiral tomographic images: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Mahnaz Sheikhi; Vida Maleki
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2011-12

9.  Identification of the mandibular vital structures: practical clinical applications of anatomy and radiological examination methods.

Authors:  Gintaras Juodzbalys; Hom-Lay Wang
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2010-07-01

10.  An innovative simplified method for assessing available bone in mandible for implant.

Authors:  S Binsu; K Chandrasekharan Nair; Sanjana Nayar; Suchita Tella
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.