The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Influence of Head Orientation in Linear Measurement for Implant Planning in Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Abbas Shokri, Samira Khajeh, Atefeh Khavid, Sara Tabari, Shiva Yarmohammadi

Citation Information : Shokri A, Khajeh S, Khavid A, Tabari S, Yarmohammadi S. Influence of Head Orientation in Linear Measurement for Implant Planning in Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (7):542-546.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1719

Published Online: 01-07-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

Use of dental implants in edentulous patients has become a common treatment modality. Treatment of such implants requires radiographic evaluation, and in most cases several different imaging techniques are necessary in order to evaluate the height, width and the structure of bone at implant site. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of head orientation in linear measurement for implant planning in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods

In the present in vitro study, 11 human dry mandibles were used. The width and height of bone at the central, canine and molar teeth areas were measured on the left and right sides by using digital calipers (as gold standard) and on CBCT images with Reaxis option and no Reaxis. Data were analyzed with Statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) 18, using pair t-test, Tukey test and intraclass correlation (ICC).

Results

Data were collected by evaluation of 11 skulls and 66 samples on the whole. There were no significant differences in bone width in any area in both Reaxis and no Reaxis option (p > 0.05). There were significant differences in bone height in the central (p = 0.005) and molar teeth areas (p = 0.010). The results did not show any significant differences between the observers (p = 0.329).

Conclusion

Using the Reaxis option does not affect the measurement of bone width, while use of this option can make a significant difference for height measurements.

How to cite this article

Shokri A, Khajeh S, Khavid A, Tabari S, Yarmohammadi S. Influence of Head Orientation in Linear Measurement for Implant Planning in Cone Beam Computed Tomography. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(7):542-546.


PDF Share
  1. Crosssectional tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70(6):791-797.
  2. Oral radiology: principles and interpretations. 5th ed. Cone-beamed computed tomography: anatomy St Louis: Elsevier; 2004. Chapter 13, p. 214-228.
  3. Accuracy of cone beam dental CT, intraoral digital and conventional film radiography for detection of periapical lesions. An ex vivo study in pig jaws. Clin Oral Invest 2007;11(1):101-106.
  4. Evaluation of the difference in accuracy between implant placement by virtual planing data and surgical guied templates versus the conventional free-hand method—a combined in vivo-in vitro techniques using cone beam CT (part II). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38(7):488-493.
  5. In vitro comparison of 2 cone beam systems and panoramic imaging for detecting simulated canine impaction-induced external root resorption in maxillary lateral incisor. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2009;136(6):764.e1-e11.
  6. Multichannel computed tomography versus cone-beam computed tomography: linear accuracy of in vitro measurements of the maxilla for implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25(3):499-505.
  7. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using conebeam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35(6):410-416.
  8. Focal trough and patient positioning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33(2):128-129.
  9. Influence of patient head positioning on measured axial tooth inclination in panoramic radiography. J Orthod 2009;36(2):103-110.
  10. Computed tomography for dental implants: the influence of the gantry angle and mandibular positioning on the bone height and width. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34(1):9-15.
  11. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103(4):534-542.
  12. Influence of maxillomandibular positioning in cone beam computed tomography for implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42(7):880-886.
  13. Accuracy of three dimensional measurements obtained from computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(2):129-134.
  14. Accuracy and precision of linear measurements in cone beam computed tomography Accuitomo tomograms obtained with different reconstruction techniques. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38(6):379-386.
  15. Cone beam CT for presurgical assessment of implant sites. J Calif Dent Assoc 2003;31(11):825-833.
  16. CT scan standard reconstruction technique for reliable jaw bone volume determination. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5(4):384-389.
  17. Optimisation of patient doses in programmable dental panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000;29(2):107-112.
  18. 3D volume imaging for dentistry: A new dimension. J Calif Dent Assoc 2003;31(11):817-823.
  19. Planning interactive implant treatment with 3-D computed tomography. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122(11):40-44.
  20. Linear accuracy of cone-beam CT derived 3D images. Angle Orthod 2009;79(1):150-157.
  21. Computer-assisted three-dimensional surgical planning: 3D virtual articulator: technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39(1):75-82.
  22. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009;71(3):461-468.
  23. Accuracy of Linear Measurements of Galileos Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Normal and Different Head Positions. Int J Dent 2012;2012: Article ID 214954.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.