Abstract

Background: One of the main uses of CBCT is the design of implant therapies, and linear calculations in these therapies are important in quantifying bone (height and width). However, previous researches have all been conducted on dry skulls and no research has been performed in patients' clinical conditions.

Aim of the Study: The aim of this research was to determine the correlation between CBCT linear measurements and actual measurements during surgery in patients undergoing implant surgery.

Materials and Methods: In diagnostic research, 54 patients were selected for implant treatment in the premolars and the distance of the mental foramen to the apex of the ridge was measured using a caliper during surgery. The same calculations were repeated in CBCT images with Romex is software by two observers at two 2-week intervals. The difference in bone height calculations in CBCT images and actual measurements during surgery were analyzed by repeated values and ANOVA.

Results: The difference in absolute value of bone height in CBCT images (second observer) and its actual values was 0.811 ± 0.54, 0.894 ± 0.67 between the first observer and its actual values,0.871 ± 0.63 between the first observer in the next 2 weeks later and the actual values,0.804 ± 0.57 between second observer in 2 weeks later and its actual values. The mean difference of bone height observations by 2 observers in 2 weeks from its actual values was equal to 0.0 ± 828.89 mm. No significant differences were observed between the absolute magnitude values of bone height measurements in CBCT images and their actual values at the time of surgery after exposure.

Conclusion: Given the limited bone height difference in CBCT images from its actual values, this imaging modality appears to be a useful and accurate tool for estimating bone height in implant surgery in clinical settings.

Keywords: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Bone Height; Linear Computations

References

1. Suomalainen A., et al. “Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multi-slice computed tomography”. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 37.1 (2008): 10-17.
2. Mozzo P. “A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results”. European Radiology 8.9 (1998): 1558-1564.
3. Hirsch E. “Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view (2014).
4. Fatemitabar S and Nikgoo A. “Multichannel computed tomography versus cone-beam computed tomography: linear accuracy of in vitro measurements of the maxilla for implant placement”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 25.3 (2010): 499-505.
5. Ganguly R., et al. “Accuracy of linear measurement in the Galileos cone beam computed tomography under simulated clinical conditions”. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 40 (2011): 299-305.
6. Kosalagood P., et al. “Linear measurement accuracy of eight cone beam computed tomography scanners”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 17.6 (2014): 1217-1227.
7. Turbush S and Turkyilmaz I. “Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 108.3 (2012): 181-188.
8. Wyatt C and Pharoah M. “Imaging techniques and image interpretation for dental implant treatment”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 11 (1998): 442-452.
9. Lindh C., et al. “Visualization of the mandibular canal by different radiographic techniques”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 3.2 (1992): 90-97.
10. Mehdizadeh M., et al. “The accuracy of spiral tomography in the assessment of maxillary alveolar bone height in the dental implants”. Dental Research Journal 7.5 (2011): 499-504.
11. Bou-Serhal C., et al. “The accuracy of spiral tomography to assess bone quantity for the preoperative planning of implants in the posterior maxilla”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 11.3 (2000): 242-247.
12. Bou-Serhal C., et al. “Localization of the mandibular canal using conventional spiral tomography: a human cadaver study”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 12.3 (2001): 230-236.
13. Shahab S., et al. “Comparison of validity and precision between spiral CT and spiral tomography for assessing implant location on maxilla”. Islamic Dentistry Community 20.1 (2009): 30-36.
14. Amin-Tavakkoli M., et al. “The comparison of Spiral Cranex Tome tomography and ProMax linear tomography for the assessment of bone quantity in the posterior maxilla”. Shahid Beheshti Dental Journal 27.3 (2007):105-112.
15. Lascala C., et al. “Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom)”. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 33.5 (2004): 291-294.
16. Berco M., et al. “Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 136.1 (2009): 17e1-17e9.
17. Periago D., et al. “Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program”. The Angle Orthodontist 78.3 (2008): 387-395.
18. Al-Ekrish A and Ekram M. “A comparative study of the accuracy and reliability of multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions”. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 40 (2011): 67-75.
19. Timock A., et al. “Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 140 (2011): 734-744.
20. Sharifi S., et al. “The accuracy of linear assessment of cone beam computed tomography using anatomic distances obtained from the human dry skull”. Jundishapur Journal of Health Sciences 12.5 (2013): 497-505.
21. Baumgaertel S., et al. “Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 136.1 (2009): 19-25.
22. Dula K., et al. “Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral computed tomography of the maxilla and mandible”. European Journal of Oral Sciences 104.5-6 (1996): 503-510.
23. Mohtavipour S., et al. “The accuracy of linear tomography in the assessment of mandibular thickness in the upper border of mandibular canal” (2010).
24. Lofthag-Hansen S., et al. “Cone-beam CT for preoperative implant planning in the posterior mandible: visibility of anatomic landmarks”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 11.3 (2009): 246-255.
25. Nickenig H and Eitner S. “Reliability of implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone beam CT data and surgical (guide) templates”. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 35.4-5 (2007): 207-211.
26. Naitoh M., et al. “Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20.5 (2009): 503-506.
27. Smith T. “Cone-beam volumetric imaging in dental, oral, and maxillofacial medicine: fundamentals, diagnostics, and treatment planning”. Journal of Prosthodontics 19.5 (2010): 419.

Citation

Citation: Maryam Johari., et al. “Studying the Correlation between CBCT Linear Measurement and Actual Measurement during Surgery in Implant Candidates”. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 4.7 (2020): 141-149.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Maryam Johari., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.