88
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cone beam computed tomography in oral implants

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanners for the oral and maxillofacial region were pioneered in the late 1990s independently by Arai et al. in Japan and Mozzo et al. CBCT has a lower dose of radiation, minimal metal artifacts, reduced costs, easier accessibility, and easier handling than multislice computed tomography (MSCT); however, the latter is still considered a better choice for the analysis of bone density using a Hounsfield unit (HU) scale. Oral implants require localized area of oral and maxillofacial area for radiation exposure; so, CBCT is an ideal choice. CBCT scans help in the planning of oral implants; they enable measurement of the distance between the alveolar crest and mandibular canal to avoid impingement of inferior alveolar nerve, avoid perforation of the mandibular posterior lingual undercut, and assess the density and quality of bone, and help in planning of the oral implant in the maxilla with special attention to the nasopalatine canal and maxillary sinus. Hence, CBCT reduces the overall exposure to radiation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature.

          This study reviewed the literature on cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial (OMF) region. A PUBMED search (National Library of Medicine, NCBI; revised 1 December 2007) from 1998 to December 2007 was conducted. This search revealed 375 papers, which were screened in detail. 176 papers were clinically relevant and were analyzed in detail. CBCT is used in OMF surgery and orthodontics for numerous clinical applications, particularly for its low cost, easy accessibility and low radiation compared with multi-slice computerized tomography. The results of this systematic review show that there is a lack of evidence-based data on the radiation dose for CBCT imaging. Terminology and technical device properties and settings were not consistent in the literature. An attempt was made to provide a minimal set of CBCT device-related parameters for dedicated OMF scanners as a guideline for future studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit.

            This study provides effective dose measurements for two extraoral direct digital imaging devices, the NewTom 9000 cone beam CT (CBCT) unit and the Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Thermoluminescent dosemeters were placed at 20 sites throughout the layers of the head and neck of a tissue-equivalent RANDO phantom. Variations in phantom orientation and beam collimation were used to create three different CBCT examination techniques: a combined maxillary and mandibular scan (Max/Man), a maxillary scan and a mandibular scan. Ten exposures for each technique were used to ensure a reliable measure of radiation from the dosemeters. Average tissue-absorbed dose, weighted equivalent dose and effective dose were calculated for each major anatomical site. Effective doses of individual organs were summed with salivary gland exposures (E(SAL)) and without salivary gland exposures (E(ICRP60)) to calculate two measures of whole-body effective dose. The effective doses for CBCT were: Max/Man scan, E(ICRP60)=36.3 micro Sv, E(SAL)=77.9 micro Sv; maxillary scan, E(ICRP60)=19.9 micro Sv, E(SAL)=41.5 micro Sv; and mandibular scan, E(ICRP60)=34.7 micro Sv, E(SAL)=74.7 micro Sv. Effective doses for the panoramic examination were E(ICRP60)=6.2 micro Sv and E(SAL)=22.0 micro Sv. When viewed in the context of potential diagnostic yield, the E(ICRP60) of 36.3 micro Sv for the NewTom compares favourably with published effective doses for conventional CT (314 micro Sv) and film tomography (2-9 micro Sv per image). CBCT examinations resulted in doses that were 3-7 (E(ICRP60)) and 2-4 (E(SAL)) times the panoramic doses observed in this study.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges.

              The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical outcome of two different surgical methods for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges before implant installation: guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes and autologous bone chips or grafting of autologous bone blocks without e-PTFE membranes. Thirty partially edentulous patients, presenting insufficient bone width (less than 4 mm) in the edentulous sites for installation of screw-type titanium implants, were selected and assigned to two different treatment modalities. Fifteen patients (group 1) were treated by means of guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes supported by stainless steel screws and autologous bone chips taken from intraoral sites. Fifteen patients (group 2) were treated by means of autologous bone blocks taken from intraoral or extraoral sites (anterior iliac crest and calvaria) and stabilized with titanium microscrews. Six to 8 months later, during re-entry for implant insertion, the gain of ridge width obtained was measured. In group 1 the average amount of bone gain was 2.7 mm, whereas in group 2 the value was 4.0 mm. Five to 6 months after implant placement prosthetic rehabilitation was started. The mean follow-up after prosthetic load has been 22.4 months. Success rates of implants according to Albrektsson criteria has been 93.3% in group 1, and 90.9% in group 2. Although a statistical comparison between the two treatment modalities may not be feasible, due to the bias resulting from the choice of treatment by the clinician and from the differences in donor sites and defect extension, some considerations can be made: 1) both methods are a reliable means for the correction of narrow edentulous ridges; 2) both techniques necessitate overcorrection of the defect because of interposition of connective tissue beneath the membrane in the first group and bone resorption in the second one; 3) the use of semipermeable barriers increases the costs of the surgical procedure, as compared to bone grafting without membranes; 4) guided bone regeneration presents a higher risk of infection because of wound dehiscence and membrane exposure. Therefore, in case of wide edentulous areas, reconstruction of narrow ridges should be performed with bone blocks without membranes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Natl J Maxillofac Surg
                Natl J Maxillofac Surg
                NJMS
                National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                0975-5950
                2229-3418
                Jan-Jun 2013
                : 4
                : 1
                : 2-6
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, KIMSU School of Dental Sciences, Karad, Maharashtra, India
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Dr. Syed Parveez Ali, Ummer Khyam Road, Eidgah, Tilak Nagar, Mysore - 570 021, Karnataka, India. E-mail: dr.parveez@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                NJMS-4-2
                10.4103/0975-5950.117811
                3800380
                24163545
                16bc5000-66d0-431f-b6f7-1af446e767c3
                Copyright: © National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Review Article

                Surgery
                cone beam computed tomography,hounsfield units,multislice computed tomography
                Surgery
                cone beam computed tomography, hounsfield units, multislice computed tomography

                Comments

                Comment on this article