Diagnostic Value of Panoramic Radiography, Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Clinical Measurement in Determining Bone Dimensions

Amirreza Babaloo, Seyyed Ata Eslambulchilar, Shima Ghasemi, Masumeh Johari

Abstract


Introduction: Calculation of the bone dimensions is of great importance for implant treatment. Several radiographic modalities have been used for this purpose. This study compared the accuracy of mesiodistal measurements of bone using panoramic radiography, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and the clinical methods.

Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, panoramic and CBCT images were obtained from 100 implant patients. Mesiodistal bone dimensions (distance between tooth CEJ in the mesial of edentulous region and CEJ of the tooth in distal of edentulous region) were calculated using a scaled ruler on the orthopantomograms and the system software in the CBCT images. During the implant insertions, a mucoperiosteal flap was raised and clinical dimensions of the bone were measured by a periodontal probe and bone gauge. The differences of bone height and thickness measurements between gold standard and CBCT or panoramic modalities were analyzed using Student’s t- test.

Results: The mean bone height was 10.64±1.55, 11.44±1.51, and 10.68±1.6 mm in the clinical, panoramic and CBCT modalities, respectively. Statistically significant difference was noted between the clinical and panoramic techniques (P<0.0001); however, no significant difference was observed between the clinical and CBCT measurements (P>0.05). During the bone height calculations, 79%, 62% and 78% of the images were ranked in the normal range using CBCT, panoramic and gold standard measurements, respectively. The mean areas under the ROC curve were 0.92 and 0.83 in CBCT and panoramic techniques, respectively.

Conclusion: Accuracy of the CBCT images was higher than panoramic technique in measuring the bone dimensions and this technique can be confidently used to calculate the bone dimensions for the implant surgeries.

 

Keywords: Partially edentulous jaw; panoramic radiography; cone-beam computed tomography; bone dimensions


Full Text:

PDF

References


Tydall 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 Pathol. 2000;89:630-7.

Loubele M, Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. A comparison of jaw dimensional and quality assessments of bone characteristics with cone-beam CT, spiral tomography, and multi-slice spiral CT. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:446-54.

Abrahams JJ. Dental CT imaging: a look at the jaw. Radiology 2001;219:334-45.

Parnia F, Fard EM, Mahboub F, Hafezeqoran A, Gavgani FE. Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109:e32-6.

Turkyilmaz I, Tözüm TF, Tumer C. Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34:267-72.

Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, Leo MC, Crowe J, Benninger BL, Covell Jr DA. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:734-44.

Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Visualisation of the mandibular canal by different radiographic techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992;3:90-7.

Mischkowski RA, Pulsfort R, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Brochhagen HG, Keeve E, Zöller JE. Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104:551-9.

Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:80-93.

Sherrard JF, Rossouw PE, Benson BW, Carrillo R, Buschang PH. Accuracy and reliability of tooth and root lengths measured on cone-beam computed tomographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:S100-8.

Grimard BA, Hoidal MJ, Mills MP, Mellonig JT, Nummikoski PV, Mealey BL. Comparison of clinical, periapical radiograph, and cone-beam volume tomography measurement techniques for assessing bone level changes following regenerative periodontal therapy. J Periodontol. 2009;80:48-55.

Doran DK, Hollender LG, Peck J, Girod S. Direct digital panoramic radiology and 2-D reconstructions of cone beam computed tomography in localization of the inferior alveolar canal and maxillary floor of sinus for intraosseous dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62:37-8.

Madhav VN. Cone beam computed tomography in implantology. Indian J Dent Sci. 2011;3:10-5.

Dula K, Mini R, van der Stelt PF, Lambrecht JT, Schneeberger P, Buser D. Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral computed tomography of the maxilla and mandible. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996;104:503-10.

Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1991;20:40-2.

Mohtavipour T, Shahsavari F, Bashizadeh Fakhar H, Abolhassani F. The accuracy of linear tomography in mandibular width determination in superior border of mandibular canal. J Res Dent Sci. 2010;7:37-41.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Bioscience and Clinical Medicine