The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

To Assess and Evaluate the Variation of Mandibular Anatomy Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Before Planning an Implant Surgery: A Population-based Retrospective Study

Abhinav Singh, Narendra Kumar, Kirti Dahiya, Rohan Sikka, Pallavi Sirana, Vikram Kapoor

Keywords : Angulation, Axial height, Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Mandible, Population

Citation Information : Singh A, Kumar N, Dahiya K, Sikka R, Sirana P, Kapoor V. To Assess and Evaluate the Variation of Mandibular Anatomy Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Before Planning an Implant Surgery: A Population-based Retrospective Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (11):1381-1386.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2436

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-11-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The accurate placement of implants in mandible requires consideration for angulations of the bone along with the vertical dimensions. The aim of this present study was to assess the variation of mandibular anatomy using computed tomography (CT) radiography and to evaluate the effect of presence and absence of teeth on the mandibular anatomy before planning an implant surgery. Material and methods: The present population-based retrospective study was conducted using 167 digital CT scan images those selected from departmental archives. The samples were sub-divided two groups: group 1included digital CT of edentulous mandible while group 2 included digital CT of edentulous mandible. The axial height, vertical height, and angulations were recorded separately for each group. Results: The results of the present study showed a gradual increase in mandibular angle in both the groups with a statistically significant difference only in the canine-premolar area. The axial height showed a significant difference at canine and first premolar area and a second premolar and the first molar area. However, available height showed a significant difference in canine and first premolar area and distal to the second molar area. When both the sides were compared, no statistically significant difference was observed between right and left sides. Conclusion: It was concluded that due to the variability of the mandibular anatomy and because of the effects of various imperative factors, 3D imaging like CT scans should be recommended for safer and secure presurgical planning. Clinical significance: In surgical osteotomies and implant placement especially in post-extraction sockets, two-dimensional (2D) image of panoramic radiographs should not be considered that reliable as these three-dimensional (3D) imaging radiographs. Therefore CT scans of various angulations and sections must be considered by the clinicians to rationally study the mandibular anatomy and their risk associated areas.


PDF Share
  1. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Tinazzi Martini P, Andreis IB. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998;8(9):1558-1564.
  2. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. 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 Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;113(6):817-826.
  3. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R. Guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry: A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseo-integration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13(5):566-570.
  4. Ishanti R, Rao G. Implant imaging. Int J Innov Res Dev 2013;2:285-289.
  5. Juodzbalys G, Kubilius M. Clinical and radiological classification of the jawbone anatomy in endosseous dental implant treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2013;4:e2.
  6. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. 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 Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;113(6):817-826.
  7. Misch K, Wang HL. Implant surgery complications: aetiology and treatment. Impl Dent 2008;17(2):159-168.
  8. Covani U, Ricci M, Bozzolo G, Mangano F, Zini A, Barone A. Analysis of the pattern of the alveolar ridge remodelling following single tooth extraction. Clin Oral Imp Res 2011; 22(8):820-825.
  9. Van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36(12):1048-1058.
  10. Sammartino G, Prados-Frutos JC, Riccitiello F. The Relevance of the Use of Radiographic Planning in Order to Avoid Complications in Mandibular Implantology: A Retrospective Study. Bio Med Res Int 2016;7:1-7.
  11. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive bone loading. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;6(2):23-31.
  12. Quirynen M, Van Assche N, Botticelli D, Berglundh T. How does the timing of implant placement to extraction affect outcome? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22(7):203-223.
  13. Schwarz MS, Rothman SL, Rhodes ML, Chafetz N. Computed tomography: Part I. Preoperative assessment of the mandible for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2(3):137-141.
  14. Peltola JS, Mattila M. Cross-sectional tomograms obtained with four panoramic radiographic units in the assessment of implant site measurements. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33(5):295-300.
  15. Lingam AS, Reddy L, Nimma V, Pradeep K. “Dental implant radiology” - Emerging concepts in planning implants. J Orofac Sci 2013;5(2):88-94.
  16. Sethi A, Kaus T, Sochor P, Axmann-Krcmar D, Chanavaz M. Evolution of the concept of angulated abutments in implant dentistry: 14-year clinical data. Imp Dent 2002;11(1):41-51.
  17. Athota A, Gandhi Babu DB, Nagalaxmi V, Raghoji S, Waghray S, Reddy CR. A comparative study of digital radiography, panoramic radiography, and computed tomography in dental implant procedures. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2017;29(2):106-110.
  18. Tang Z, Liu X, Chen K. Comparison of digital panoramic radiography versus cone beam computerized tomography for measuring alveolar bone. Head & face medicine. 2017 Dec;13(1):1-7.
  19. Shruthi M, Sangeetha R, Singh AK, Kini R, Naik V. To implant or not to implant?: The role of imaging. J Orofac Res 2013:3:210-217.
  20. Gupta S, Patil N, Solanki J, Singh R, Laller S. Oral Implant Imaging: A Review. Malays J Med Sci 2015;22(3):7-17.
  21. Alnahwi M, Alqarni A, Alqahtani R, Magnas BB, Alshahrani FN. A survey on radiographic prescription practices in dental implant assessment. J Applied Dent Med Sci 2017;3:148-56.
  22. Sahota J, Bhatia A, Gupta M, Singh V, Soni J, Soni R. Reliability of Orthopantomography and Conebeam Computed Tomography in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(8):1-5.
  23. Garlapati K, Babu DBG, Chaitanya NCSK, Guduru H, Rembers A, Soni P. Evaluation of Preference and Purpose of Utilisation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Compared to Orthopantomogram (OPG) by Dental Practitioners– A Cross-Sectional Study. Polish J Radiol 2017;82:248-251.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.