The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 5 ( 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Predictability of Suitable Implant Lengths as related to Accurate Treatment Planning using Recent Roentgenographic Measures: A Key to Success

Deepti Raghav, Renu B Pachar, Ravishek K Singh, Sachin Kundra, Sankalp Arya, Lata K Mehta

Keywords : Cephalogram, Cone beam computed tomography, Dental implants, Implant planning, Surgical guide

Citation Information : Raghav D, Pachar RB, Singh RK, Kundra S, Arya S, Mehta LK. Evaluation of Predictability of Suitable Implant Lengths as related to Accurate Treatment Planning using Recent Roentgenographic Measures: A Key to Success. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (5):535-540.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2295

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2018

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


Abstract

Background and aim: Selection of suitable length of dental implants is very subjective and largely depends on clinical evidences and operator\'s expertise. The present study was aimed to assess the role of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and cephalograms as far as the selection of right implant length is concerned. Materials and methods: The study includes 220 patients for whom radiographic and follow-up records were obtained. There were 105 males and 115 females in the age range of 22 to 58 years. A total of 98 implant sites in different edentulous areas were studied. Length of implant was predicted at treatment planning and compared with finally placed implant at surgical stages. It also includes the in-depth exploration of (1) number of implants placed per patient, (2) implant per edentulous areas, (3) implant location, and (4) implant region. For prediction of implant lengths, CBCT results were obtained and compared with cephalometric findings. Accuracies of implant lengths as planned by CBCT and cephalometric images were also studied at treatment planning and surgical stages. Statistical analysis and results: Upon statistical comparisons, we found that larger implant lengths chosen at treatment planning stage did not change in 65.5% of patients. In addition, the smaller length implants were just about the same as that with larger dimensions. The CBCT results were satisfactory (up to 98.5%). Cephalometry was performed well in this prediction, especially in posterior mandible (87.9%). However, its performance in anterior maxillary region was not satisfactory (69.6%). Intergroup comparisons of CBCT and cephalometric results at different regions were significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our study results show insignificant changes in the length of implants that was exactly planned using CBCT scans. Therefore, accurate prediction of implant lengths can be done using CBCT scans as they have superior and advanced tools that facilitate presurgical decision-making. Lateral cephalometric evaluation has been shown as an imperative radiographic tool for determining implant lengths as it confirmed the significance bone resorption on the selection of implant length at different sites. Clinical significance: The CBCT and lateral cephalogram offer excellent anatomical details that can be judiciously applied for treatment planning and other clinical decision-making, including selection of correct implant length. Our study advocates thorough cephalometric evaluations of mandible wherein implants are to be placed for implant-supported overdentures.


PDF Share
  1. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Canad Dent Assoc 2006 Feb;72(1):75-80.
  2. Rebaudi A, Trisi P, Cella R, Cecchini G. Preoperative evaluation of bone quality and bone density using a novel CT/ micro CT-based hard-normal-soft classification system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010 Jan-Feb;25(1):75-85.
  3. Molly L. Bone density and primary stability in implant therapy. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006 Oct;17 (Suppl 2):124-135.
  4. Martinez H, Davarpanah M, Missika P, Celletti R, Lazzara R. Optimal implant stabilization in low density bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001 Oct;12(5):423-432.
  5. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011 Aug;22(8):873-879.
  6. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark P, editor. Tissue-integrated prostheses. Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. 1st ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. pp. 199-209.
  7. De Oliveira RC, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro- Rotta RF. Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008 Feb;105(2):231-238.
  8. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001 Feb;12(1):79-84.
  9. 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.
  10. Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: clinical-histomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999 Feb;10(1):1-7.
  11. Swennen GRJ, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multislice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006 Sep;130(3):410-416.
  12. Chang M, Wennstrom JL, Odman P, Anderssom B. Implant supported single-tooth replacement compared to contralateral teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999 Jun;10(3):185-195.
  13. Hudieb M, Kasugai S. Biomechanical effect of crestal bone osteoplasty before implant placement: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011 Feb;40(2):200-206.
  14. Tyndall AA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000 May;89(5):630-637.
  15. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R, Lekholm U, Nakielny R, van Steenberghe D, van der Stelt P, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002 Oct;13(5):566-570.
  16. Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004 Mar-Apr;19(2):228-231.
  17. Silva MAGS, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Burmann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 May;133(5):640.
  18. Batenburg RH, Stellingsma K, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Bone height measurements on panoramic radiographs: the effect of shape and position of edentulous mandibles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997 Oct;84(4):430-435.
  19. Choi YG, Kim YK, Eckert SE, Shim CH. Cross-sectional study of the factors that influence radiographic magnification of implant diameter and length. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004 Jul-Aug;19(4):594-596.
  20. 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 Jun;113(6):817-826.
  21. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Tinazzi Martini P, Bergamo Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998;8(9):1558-1564.
  22. Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Pozzi Taubert S, Leonardi A, Giorgianni A, Barresi M, Macchi A, Bracchi E, et al. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med 2010 Jun;115(4):600-611.
  23. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for crosssection imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004 Aug;15(4):490-497.
  24. Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011 Apr;22(4):424-429.
  25. Hu KS, Choi DY, Lee WJ, Kim HJ, Jung UW, Kim S. 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.
  26. Oliveira RCG, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro Rotta RF. Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008 Feb;105(2):231-238.
  27. Diniz AF, Mendonça EF, Leles CR, Guilherme AS, Cavalcante MP, Silva MAGS. Changes in the pre-surgical treatment planning using conventional spiral tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008 Mar;19(3):249-253.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.