Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8161-3754
Show others and affiliations
2014 (English)In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, ISSN 0905-7161, E-ISSN 1600-0501, Vol. 25, no 6, p. 690-695Article in journal (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: To compare the implant size (width and length) planned with digital panoramic radiographs, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-generated panoramic views, or CBCT cross-sectional images, in four implant systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-one patients with a total of 103 implant sites in the upper premolar and/or lower molar regions were examined with digital panoramic radiography (D-PAN) and (CBCT). A metal ball 5 mm in diameter was placed in the edentulous area for the D-PAN. CBCT data sets were reformatted to a 10-mm thick CBCT panoramic view (CBCT-pan) and 1-mm cross-sections (CBCT-cross). Measurements were performed in the images using dedicated software. All images were displayed on a monitor and assessed by three observers who outlined a dental implant by placing four reference points in the site of the implant-to-be. Differences in width and length of the implant-to-be from the three modalities were analyzed. The implant size selected in the CBCT-cross images was then compared to that selected in the other two modalities (D-PAN and CBCT-pan) for each of the implant systems separately. RESULTS: The implant-to-be (average measurements among observers) was narrower when measured in CBCT-cross compared with both D-PAN and CBCT-Pan. For premolar sites, the width also differed significantly between D-PAN and CBCT-pan modalities. The implant-to-be was also significantly shorter when recorded in CBCT-cross than in D-PAN. In premolar sites, there were no significant differences in implant length among the three image modalities. It mattered very little for the change in implant step sizes whether CBCT-cross was compared to D-PAN or CBCT-pan images. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the selected implant size differs when planned on panoramic or cross-section CBCT images. In most cases, implant size measured in cross-section images was narrower and shorter than implant size measured in a panoramic image or CBCT-based panoramic view

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Blackwell Munksgaard, 2014. Vol. 25, no 6, p. 690-695
Keywords [en]
cone beam computed tomography, digital panoramic radiography, implant planning, implant size
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-15943DOI: 10.1111/clr.12126Local ID: 16313OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-15943DiVA, id: diva2:1419465
Available from: 2020-03-30 Created: 2020-03-30 Last updated: 2022-06-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records

Stavropoulos, Andreas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Stavropoulos, Andreas
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 14 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf