The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2017 ) > List of Articles


Reliability of Orthopantomography and Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Clinical Study

Jasjit Sahota, Aditya Bhatia, Vishal Singh, Juhi Soni, Richa Soni

Citation Information : Sahota J, Bhatia A, Singh V, Soni J, Soni R. Reliability of Orthopantomography and Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (8):665-669.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2103

Published Online: 01-08-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.



Preoperative diagnosis and treatment planning are fundamental requirements to ensure success rate of implant. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides all three dimensions and has been proved as a tool for radiology, especially in the success of implant. This study was conducted to evaluate the reliability of orthopantomography (OPG) and CBCT in presurgical implant planning.

Materials and methods

The study was conducted on 110 partially or completely edentulous adult patients (male 50 and female 60). Patient information regarding name, age, gender, and so forth was recorded. Thorough clinical examination was done to locate the edentulous site for the placement of implant. All patients were subjected to OPG and CBCT.

The OPG was taken with digital panoramic unit (Planmeca) operating at 120 kVp, 2 mA, and exposure time of 17 seconds. The CBCT was taken using NewTom machine with field of view 11 × 8 cm and resolution of 0.3 × 0.3 × 0.3 mm operating at 120 kVp at 5 mA. NNT software with slice thickness of 0.1 mm was used in this study.

Measurement of bone height and distance from anatomical structures was done on OPG, whereas bone height and bone width were measured on CBCT scan in all three planes, such as coronal plane, sagittal plane, and axial plane. The measurement was done by two experienced observers.


The present study comprised 110 patients (male 50 and female 60). About 102 (16.7%) implants were placed in anterior region, and 508 (83.3%) implants were placed in posterior region. Implant site was incisor region (55), canine (30), premolar (250), and molar (275). The difference was significant (p < 0.01). Variations are usually observed in presurgical planning with CBCT and OPG. The length and width of implant remained unchanged in 90 and 85% of the cases respectively. In 8% of cases, OPG revealed more length of implant than CBCT, whereas only in 2% cases CBCT revealed more length of implant than OPG. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). When we compared the diameter, OPG revealed more diameter in 10% of cases, whereas CBCT only revealed 5% of cases. The difference was significant (p < 0.05). Observer found CBCT as effective in 95% of cases and ineffective in only 5% of cases, whereas OPG was effective in 78% of cases and ineffective in 22% of cases. The different was significant (p < 0.05).


The CBCT being three-dimensional provides detailed information that two-dimensional radiographs cannot offer, which aids in precision to further improve the entire implant process.

Clinical significance

In recent times, implant has become the treatment of choice for edentulous patients. The CBCT has increased the success rate of implant due to its high resolution, ability to demonstrate anatomical structures more effectively than other radiographic diagnostic tools.

How to cite this article

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):665-669.

PDF Share
  1. Incidental findings from a retrospective study of 318 cone beam computed tomography consultation reports. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012 May-Jun;27(3):595-603.
  2. Reliability of two different presurgical preparation methods for implant dentistry based on panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in cadavers. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2012 Apr;42(2):39-44.
  3. Comparison of linear tomography and direct ridge mapping for the determination of edentulous ridge dimensions in human cadavers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005 Jun;99(6):748-754.
  4. An assessment of the accuracy of ridge-mapping in planning implant therapy for the anterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000 Feb;11(1):34-38.
  5. Computed tomographic diagnosis and localization of bone canals in the mandibular interforaminal region for prevention of bleeding complications during implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001 Jan-Feb;16(1):68-72.
  6. 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 May-Jun;22(3):446-454.
  7. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014 Jun;25(6):690-695.
  8. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. J Periodontol 2008 Mar;79(3):401-405.
  9. Using a flat-panel detector in high resolution cone beam CT for dental imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004 Sep;33(5):285-290.
  10. The use of 3 different imaging methods for the localization of the mandibular canal in dental implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008 May-Jun;23(3):463-470.
  11. Comparison of radiographic bone height assessments in panoramic and intraoral radiographs of implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007 Jan/Feb;22(1):96-100.
  12. Cone beam computed tomography: from capture to reporting. Dent Clin North Am 2014 Jul;58(3):463-716.
  13. Cross-sectional imaging of the jaws for dental implant treatment: accuracy of linear tomography using a panoramic machine in comparison with reformatted computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002 Jan-Feb;17(1):107-112.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.