You are here

Home » Content

DİŞHEKİMLERİNİN DENTAL İMPLANT PLANLAMASINDA KULLANILAN RADYOGRAFİ TEKNİKLERİ KONUSUNDAKİ TERCİHLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

EVALUATION OF PREFERENCES OF DENTISTS FOR RADIOGRAPHIC METHODS USED IN DENTAL IMPLANT PLANNING

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2008

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The aim of this study was to investigate the opnnons of 41 dentists in Faculty of Dentistry at Atatürk University about radiographic methods used to evaluate accuracy of dental imp/ant length. A 19-point questionnaire with closed-ended questions was used by two resarch assistants to interview dentists. The database was analyzed by SPSS v16 software and the values from two radiographic modalities, panoramic radiography and computerized tomography (CT), were compared using a chi test. The frequency of overestimation was statistically significant (chf= 11.294; P<0.01) between panoramic and CT. The results showed that 56.1% of the dentists' confidence was in the overestimation of measurements in Panoramic radiography, 7.3% in T and 0% computerized tomography. The interviewed dentists that CT was the best radiographic method when considering the measurement estimation accuracy in preoperative dental imp/ant assessment.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çahşmanın amacı, Atatürk Üniversitesi Dşş Hekim/iği Fakültesinde görev/i 41 dşş hekiminin, dental imp/ant uzunluklarının değerlendirilmesinde kutlanılan radyografkk teknikler hakkındaki görüş/erinin araştırılmasıdır. Kesin cevaba yönelik olarak hazırlanan 19 adet sorudan oluşan brr anket formu iki araştırma görevlisi tarafından diş hekimlerine yöneltildi. Veriler SPSS v16 software programı ile anaiiz edildi ve iki radyografi tekniğnndeki (panoramik radyografi ve bi/gi- 2 sayarlı tomografi) değerler chi testi ile karşılaştırıldı. Panoramik radyografi ile bilgisayarlı tomografiden ede edilen ölçümlerin doğruluğu incelendiğinde; iki tekniğin farkının istatistiksel olarak anlam/ı olduğu (X2=11.294; P<0.01) görüldü. Çahşmaya kat/an dşş hekimleri, panoramik radyogram/ar/a e/de edilen ölçümlerin %56,1 inin, konvansiyonel tomografide %7,3 ünün, bilgisayarlı tomografide ise %0 ının ölçümleri normalden daha büyük gösterdiğini ifade etti/er. Diş hekim/erinin görüşleri dikkate alındığında, ölçüm doğruluğu bakımından, operasyon öncesi dental implant değerlendirmesinde b/gisayariı tomografi (CT) nnn en uygun radyografkk metot olduğu kanaatine varıldı.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-dishekimlerinin-dental-implant-planlamasinda-kullanilan-radyografi-teknikleri-konusundaki-tercihlerinin-degerlendirilmesi.pdf
  • 2
60-65
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-16.
2. Andersson B, Omdan P, Lindvall AM, Brenemark PI. Five-year prospective study of prosthodontic and surgical single-tooth implants treatment in general practices and at a specialist clinic. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:351-5.
3. Sakakura CE, Morais JA, Loffredo LC, Scaf G. A survey of radiographic prescription in dental implant assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003;32:397-400.
4. Engelman MJ, Sorensen JA, Moy P. Optimum placement of ossointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:467-73.
5. Stella JP, Tharanon W. A precise radiographic method to determine the location of the inferior alveolar canal in the posterior edentulous mandible: implications for dental implants. Part I: technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:15-22.
6. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Impl Res 1995;6:96-103.
7. Bou Serhal C, Jacobs R, Flygare L, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Preoperative validation of localisation of the mental foramen. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002;31:39-43.
8. Reddy MS, Mayfield-Donahoo T, Vanderven FJ, Jeffcoat MK. A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of panoramic radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:229-38.
9. Kassebaum DK, Nummikoski PV, Triplett RG, Langlais RP. Cross-sectional radiography for implant site assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70:674-8.
10. Bolin A, Eliasson S, von Beetzen M, Jansson L. Radiographic evaluation of mandibular posterior implant sites: correlation between panoramic and tomographic determinations. Clin Oral Impl Res 1996;7:354-9.
11. Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofac Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:630-7.
12. Beason RC, Brooks SL. Preoperative implant site assessment in Southeast Michigan [abstract]. J Dent Res 2001;80:137.
13. Scropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;92:458-63.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com