The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Different Preosteotomy Determinants as Affecting the Success of Implant Therapy: A “CBCT”-based Clinical Study

Sunny Jain, Karan Kapoor, Karan Sethi, Divya R Dahiya, Bhupender Singh, Ritu Sangwan

Keywords : Cone-beam computed tomography, Dental implant, Implant planning, Maxillary sinus, Prosthodontics

Citation Information : Jain S, Kapoor K, Sethi K, Dahiya DR, Singh B, Sangwan R. Evaluation of Different Preosteotomy Determinants as Affecting the Success of Implant Therapy: A “CBCT”-based Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (10):1212-1216.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2662

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-10-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The success of implant therapy is of greatest concern for clinicians because a minor negligence can lead to ultimate failure of treatment. However, comprehensive and precise treatment planning can ensure high success rate of implant therapy. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is an innovation that allows clinicians to explore all related factors in details. This study was conducted to evaluate different preosteotomy determinants as affecting the success of implant therapy in the maxillary anterior region using CBCT. Materials and methods: This study was conducted on 98 partially or complete denture patients willing for artificial replacement of their missing teeth by implant or implant over-denture. Demographic details of participating patients were collected. Furthermore, comprehensive local examination was also done to finalize the site of placement of implant. Cone-beam computed tomography was attempted in all patients for determining accurate implant location, status of bone, and other interrelated determinants of implant success. Cone-beam computed tomography was also prescribed for patients so as to have presurgical idea of implant dimensions as shown in virtual placement of implant. To rule out any interobserver bias, the interpretations of CBCT images were completed by two independent experienced observers. Results: In the 98 studied patients, 61 were males and 37 were females. The study was restricted to the maxillary anterior region only. The studied preosteotomy determinants were available bone height and width in the edentulous region from ridge crest up to the maxillary sinus floor or the nasal fossa floor. A total of 107 implants were placed virtually (on CBCT) in the maxillary anterior region and compared quantitatively in postosteotomy phases. Implant placement sites were the maxillary central incisor region (39), the lateral incisor region (31), and canine (37). Authors also noticed that the relative length and width of virtual implant remained unaffected in 97% of the cases. Conclusion: Cone-beam computed tomography showed accurate status of various presurgical determinants like trabeculae, peri-ridiculer pathology, and amount of horizontal and vertical bone losses. Hence, it was further concluded that all these presurgical determinants greatly affect the final success rate of implant therapy. It is therefore deemed necessary to judiciously consider and clinically manage such factors before attempting implant in the maxillary anterior region. Clinical significance: Presurgical evaluation of factors associated with implant dimensions significantly assists clinicians in deciding the finest treatment option. All additional information provided by CBCT genuinely led to a change in the treatment plan that provides enhanced clinical outcome with lesser postoperative complications.


PDF Share
  1. Lascala CA, Panella J, et al. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:291–294. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/25500850.
  2. Farman AG, Scarfe WC. The Basics of Maxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Semin Orthod 2009;15:2–13. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2008.09.001.
  3. Jacobs R, Salmon B, et al. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health 2018;18(1):88–92. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5.
  4. Kau CH, Richmond S, et al. Current Products and Practice Three-dimensional cone beam computerized tomography in orthodontics. J Orthod 2005;32:282–293. DOI: 10.1179/146531205225021285.
  5. Ballrick JW, Palomo JM, et al. Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone beam computed tomography machine. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;134:573–582. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.025.
  6. Patrick S, Birur NP, et al. Comparison of gray values of cone-beam computed tomography with hounsfield units of multislice computed tomography: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2017;28:66–70. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_415_16.
  7. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is Cone-Beam CT and How Does it Work? Dent Clin N Am 2008;52:707–730. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005.
  8. Moshfeghi M, Tavakoli MA, et al. Analysis of linear measurement accuracy obtained by cone beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9(1):S57–S62.
  9. Özalp Ö, Tezerişener HA, et al. Comparing the precision of panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in avoiding anatomical structures critical to dental implant surgery: A retrospective study. Imaging Sci Dent 2018;48(4):269–275. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2018.48.4.269.
  10. Fatemitabar SA, Nikgoo A. Multichannel computed tomography vs cone-beam computed tomography: Linear accuracy of in vitro measurements of the maxilla for implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:499–505.
  11. Pinsky HM, Dyda S, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using cone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:410–416. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/20987648.
  12. Eskandarloo A, Saati S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of three cone beam computed tomography systems and periapical radiography for detection of fenestration around dental implants. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9:376–381. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_103_18.
  13. Stratemann SA, Huang JC, et al. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:80–93. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/31349994.
  14. Loubele M, Van Assche N, et al. Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. Oral Surg Oral MedOral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:512–518. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.004.
  15. Saati S, Kaveh F, et al. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography and multi slice computed tomography image quality of human dried mandible using 10 anatomical landmarks. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:13–16. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/20637.9253.
  16. Agbaje JO, Jacobs R, et al. Volumetric analysis of extraction sockets using cone beam computed tomography: a pilot study on ex-vivo jaw bone. J Clin Periodontol 2007;34:985–990. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01134.x.
  17. Alawaji Y, MacDonald DS, et al. Optimization of cone beam computed tomography image quality in implant dentistry. Clin Exp Dent Res 2018;4(6):268–278. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.141.
  18. Panda M, Shankar T, et al. Cone beam computerized tomography evaluation of incisive canal and anterior maxillary bone thickness for placement of immediate implants. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18:356–363. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_167_18.
  19. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, et al. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28(4):245–248. DOI: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600448.
  20. Repesa M, Sofic A, et al. Comparison of Results of Measurement of Dimensions of the Placed Dental Implants on Cone Beam Computed Tomography with Dimensions of the Producers of the Implants. Acta Inform Med 2017;25(2):116–120. DOI: 10.5455/aim.2017.25.116-120.
  21. Worthington P. The role of cone-beam computed tomography in the planning and placement of implants. JADA 2010;141(10 suppl): 19S–24S. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0358.
  22. Deeb G, Antonos L, et al. Is Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Always Necessary for Dental Implant Placement? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;75(2):285–289. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.11.005.
  23. Benavides E, Rios HF, et al. Use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Implant Dentistry: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus Report. Implant Dent 2012;21:1–9. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31824885b5.
  24. Correa LR, Spin-Neto R, et al. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(6):690–695. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12126.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.