Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Assessment of Response of Dental Clinicians and Patients towards Different Imaging Modalities Used In Diagnostic Evaluation of Dental Implant Therapy

Assessment of Response of Dental Clinicians and Patients towards Different Imaging Modalities Used In Diagnostic Evaluation of Dental Implant Therapy

Journal Name:

  • Indian Journal of Basic & Applied Medical Research

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
Aim: To assess the response of clinicians and patient towards various imaging modalities used in diagnostic evaluation of dental implant therapy. Materials and Methods: 200 clinicians with more than 5 years of experience in implant dentistry were selected in study. Every clinician was requested to judge accessibility, maneuverability, accuracy, reproducibility, reliability, ease of understanding of target anatomy, ease of imaging documentation and ability to increase dental awareness through provided questionnaire, for each imaging modality. 70 patients seeking dental implant therapy were assigned into 7 different group- IOPA (n=10), OPG (n=10), Lat. Ceph (n=10), conventional CT (n=10) and Spiral CT (n=`10), CBCT (n=10) and ICGI (n=10). Patients were advised to undergo radiographic imaging procedure specific to respective group. Results: The clinicians in highly preferred the cross- sectional imaging over conventional radiographic imaging for diagnosis and treatment planning of implant. Among cross-sectional imaging, preference was greater for CBCT, ICGI and Spiral CT scan than conventional CT scan. Patient responded and tolerated the procedure very well for the cross sectional imaging than conventional radiographic imaging modalities. However, expense and accessibility were the only negative factor for crosssectional imaging. Conclusion: The clinician and patient response for cone beam Computed tomography either individually or associated with Interactive computer guided implantology, and Spiral CT scan were magnificent over conventional radiography for treatment planning of dental implant.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-assessment-response-dental-clinicians-and-patients-towards-different-imaging-modalities-used-diagnostic-evaluation-dental-implant-therapy.pdf
  • 4
341-350
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Klinge B, Petersson A, Maly P. Location of the mandibular
canal: comparison of macroscopic findings, conventional
radiography, and computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants 1989; 4:327-32.
2. Ekestubbe A. Conventional spiral and low-dose computed
mandibular tomography for dental implant planning. Swed Dent
J Suppl 1999;138:S1-82.
Indian Journal of Basic & Applied Medical Research; September 2012: Vol.-1, Issue-4, P. 341-350
349
www.ijbamr.com
3. Sonick M, Abrahams J, Faiella RA. A comparison of the accuracy of periapical, panoramic, and
computerized tomographic radiographs in locating the mandibular canal. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
1994; 9:455-60.
4. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental
practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006; 72:75-80.
5. Schwarz MS, Rothman SL, Chafetz N, Stauts B. Preoperative diagnostic radiology for the tissue-integrated
prosthesis. In: Laney WR, Tolman DE, editors. Tissue integration in oral, orthopedic, and maxillofacial
reconstruction. Chicago, Quintessence; 1990: 68-79.
6. Sudbrink SD. Computer-guided implant placement with immediate provisionalization: a case report. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63:771-4.
7. LudlowJB, Davies- Ludlow LE, Brools SL: Dosimetry of two extra oral direct digital imaging devices:
New tome cone beam CT and and orthophos plus D panaromic unit, Dentomaxiloofacial Radilo 32:290,
2003.
8. Andersson L, Kurol M. CT scan prior to installation of osseointegrated implants in the maxilla. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 1987; 16:50-5.
9. Schwarz MS, Rothman SL et al. Computed tomography: part I. Preoperative assessment of the mandible
for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2:137-41.
10. Schwarz MS, Rothman SL, Rhodes ML, Chafetz N. Computed tomography: part II. Preoperative
assessment of the maxilla for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2:143-8.
11. Wishan MS, Bahat O, Krane M. Computed tomography as an adjunct in dental implant surgery. Int J
Periodontics Restorative Dent 1988; 8:30-47.
12. Andersson JE, Svartz K. CT-scanning in the preoperative planning of osseointegrated implants in the
maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988; 17:33-5.
13. Lofthag-Hansen S, Gröndahl K, Ekestubbe A. Cone-beam CT for preoperative implant planning in the
posterior mandible: visibility of anatomic landmarks. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009; 11:246-55.
14. Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S, et al. Comparison of image validity between cone beam
computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36:465-71.
15. Verstreken K, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Marchal G, Naert I, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Computerassisted
planning of oral implant surgery: a three-dimensional approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
1996; 11:806-10.
16. Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Radiographic planning and assessment of endosseous oral implants. Berlin:
Springer; 1998.
17. Lofthag-Hansen S, Gröndahl K, Ekestubbe A. Cone-beam CT for preoperative implant planning in the
posterior mandible: visibility of anatomic landmarks. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009; 11:246-55.
Indian Journal of Basic & Applied Medical Research; September 2012: Vol.-1, Issue-4, P. 341-350
350
www.ijbamr.com
18. C.C de Menezes ,Guilherme Janson et al. Reproducibility of bone plate thickness measurements with Cone-
Beam Computed Tomography using different image acquisition protocolsDental Press J Orthod 2010
Sept-Oct;15(5):143-9.

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