İmplant planlamasında iki farklı görüntüleme yönteminin karşılaştırılması

Year 2020, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 19 - 28, 23.04.2020

Serap Keskin Tunç , Mehmet Güzel

https://doi.org/10.30569/adiyamansaglik.657667

Abstract

Amaç: Panoramik radyografi (PR), diş hekimliğinde özellikle cerrahi işlemlerden önce sıklıkla kullanılan iki boyutlu görüntüleme tekniğidir. Son zamanlarda ise üç boyutlu görüntülemeye başvurulmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı implantların uzunluk ve çap planlamasında, PR ile birlikte değerlendirilen klinik fotoğraflar ve konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografiler’in (KIBT) yeterliliklerinin tanısal düşünme etkinliği açısından incelenmesidir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma Grup 1 (KIBT) ve Grup 2 (PR+Klinik Görüntü) olarak gruplandırıldı. İmplant tedavileri yapılmadan önceki klinik fotoğrafları, dijital panoramik radyografileri ve KIBT görüntüleri gibi hasta kayıtları, arşivden temin edildi. Deneyimli ve hastaların demografik bilgileri hakkında bilgisi olmayan 5 klinisyen tarafından, planlanan implantların boy&çapları değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya 13 erkek, 8 kadın toplam 21 hasta dâhil edildi. 60 implant için uygun bölgeler değerlendirildi. Grup 2’de daha uzun implantlar, Grup 1’de ise daha geniş implantlar planlandığı gözlendi. Araştırmada gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılığa rastlanmadı.

Sonuç: Fotoğraf kayıtlarının alınmasının ve bunların implant planlamasında kullanılmasının daha doğru planlamalar yapılabilmesine olanak sağlayacağını düşünmekteyiz.

Keywords

KIBT, İmplant çap-boy planlama, Panoramik film, Klinik fotoğraf

Comparison of two different imaging methods in implant planning

Abstract

Aim: Panoramic radiography (PR) is an imaging technique that is frequently used in dentistry, before surgical procedures. In recent years, three-dimensional imaging has been specifically used to visualize potential implant sites in more detail. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficiency of clinical photographs and conical-beam-computed-tomography (CBCT) in terms of diagnostic thinking and the effectiveness in the planning of length&diameter of implants together with PR.

Materials and Methods: Patient records such as clinical photographs, PR and CBCT prior to implant treatment were obtained from the archive. A total of 21 patients were included in study. 60 implants were evaluated by 5 clinicians who were experience and blinded to the demographic information. It was evaluated by taking the average of measurements.

Results: The analysis showed that longer implants were planned by PR+photographs, and larger implants were planned by CBCTs. There was no statistical differences between groups.

Conclusion: We think it is beneficial to use photos in implant planning.

Keywords

CBCT, Implant planning, Panoramic film, Clinical photography

References

• 1. Shabazian M, Vandewoude C, Wyatt J, Jacobs R. Comparative assessment of panoramic radiography and CBCT imaging for radiodiagnostics in the posterior maxilla. Clinical Oral Investigation 2014;18(1):293-300.
• 2. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC; American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology 2012;113(6):817-826.
• 3. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2008;19(1):81-85.
• 4. Dula K, Bornstein MM, Buser D, Dagassan-Berndt D, Ettlin DA, Filippi A, Gabioud F, Katsaros C, Krastl G, Lambrecht JT, et al. SADMFR guidelines for the use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/Digital Volume Tomography. Swiss Dental Journal 2014;124(11):1169-1183.
• 5. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Medical Decision Making 1991;11(2):88-94.
• 6. Schulze R. Editorial: dentomaxillofacial radiology. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2012;41(1):1-2.
• 7. Ergin U. Medikal ve Oral Mukoza Fotoğraf Çekimi. Turk Arch Dermatol Venereology. 2012; 46(2):150-6.
• 8. Desai V, Bumb D. Digital dental photography: a contemporary revolution. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2013;6(3):193-6.
• 9. Freire-Maia B, Machado VD, Valerio CS, Custódio AL, Manzi FR, Junqueira JL. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on multi-slice and cone beam computed tomography scans to detect the mandibular canal during bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible. International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery 2017;46(3):296-302.
• 10. Correa LR et al. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT‐generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross‐sectional images. Clinical oral implants research 2014;25(6):690-695.
• 11. Dagassan-Berndt DC et al. "Influence of Three-dimensional Imaging on Implant Treatment Planning: Implant Diameter and Length. The journal of contemporary dental practice 2018;19(6):704-711.
• 12. Keerthna M, Ashish R. Jain. Comparison of dimensional accuracy of implant cast of multiple angled implants by splinted and non-splinted methods-an in vitro study. Drug Invention Today 2018;10(4)1-5.
• 13. Vazquez L et al. Reliability of the vertical magnification factor on panoramic radiographs: clinical implications for posterior mandibular implants. Clinical oral implants research 2011;22(12):1420-1425.
• 14. Nickenig HJ et al. Lingual concavities in the mandible: a morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 2015;43(2):254-259.
• 15. Devlin H, Yuan J. Object position and image magnification in dental panoramic radiography: a theoretical analysis. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2013;42(1):29951683-29951683.
• 16. Tronje G et al. Image distortion in rotational panoramic radiography: I. General considerations. Acta Radiologica Diagnosis 1981;22(3A):295-299.
• 17. Guerrero ME et al. Does cone-beam CT alter treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative implant planning using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images. Imaging science in dentistry 2014;44(2):121-128.
• 18. Fokas G et al. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review. Clinical oral implants research 2018;2(1): 393-415.
• 19. Alkan BA, Aral CA, Aral K, Acer N, Şişman Y. Quantification of circumferential bone level and extraction socket dimensions using different imaging and estimation methods: A comparative study. Oral Radiology 2016;32(1):145– 153.
• 20. Luangchana P, Pornprasertsuk Damrongsri S, Kiattavorncharoen S, Jirajariyavej B. Accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in dental implant treatment planning. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2015;30(1):1287– 1294.
• 21. Shahidi S, Zamiri B, Abolvardi M, Akhlaghian M, Paknahad M. Comparison of Dental Panoramic Radiography and CBCT for Measuring Vertical Bone Height in Different Horizontal Locations of Posterior Mandibular Alveolar Process. Journal of Dentistry (Shiraz) 2018;19(2):83-91.