The use of tomography for dental implant planning.

OBJECTIVES To examine the use of tomography for dental implant planning. METHODS A questionnaire was sent to oral radiology clinics in Sweden and to implantology clinics in different parts of the world with questions on selection criteria and techniques for, and frequency of, pre-implant tomography. Differences between mean values were assessed by t-test. A new method developed by the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute was used to assess radiation absorbed dose from CT. RESULTS Tomography was used by 93.4% of the clinics, but there was marked variation both between and within different clinical situations. It was performed in all cases by 21% and the majority used it for the evaluation of the maxilla, the posterior mandible and in single implant cases. Small clinics (< 100 patients per year) used tomography frequently and clinics in Sweden significantly more often than those in other countries. The majority had changed their policy recently, using tomography more often. CT was used by 73% of respondents, mainly the small clinics. The majority of the large clinics (> 500 patients per year) used conventional tomography. The mean absorbed dose for CT scanning protocols was 65 mGy. The variation within and between different makes of CT was considerable. CONCLUSIONS There are large variations in frequency of use of both conventional and computed tomography for dental implant planning by different clinics who also vary in the indications for their choice. A substantial factor influencing the technique chosen was its availability rather than clinical need.

[1]  B. Benson,et al.  Effective dose and risk assessment from computed tomography of the maxillofacial complex. , 1995, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[2]  C. Friedman,et al.  Dentascan imaging of the mandible and maxilla , 1993, Head & neck.

[3]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Absorbed doses from computed tomography for dental implant surgery: comparison with conventional tomography. , 1993, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[4]  C Lindh,et al.  Visualisation of the mandibular canal by different radiographic techniques. , 1992, Clinical oral implants research.

[5]  J. Armstrong,et al.  Anatomic placement of fixation devices in genioplasty. , 1993, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[6]  C A Fjellström,et al.  CT of the edentulous maxilla intended for osseo-integrated implants. , 1987, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[7]  I. Kamel,et al.  Radiation dose reduction in CT of the pediatric pelvis. , 1994, Radiology.

[8]  A L Baert,et al.  CT scan standard reconstruction technique for reliable jaw bone volume determination. , 1990, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  G. Krekeler,et al.  Hemorrhage of the floor of the mouth resulting from lingual perforation during implant placement: a clinical report. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[10]  C Lindh,et al.  Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. , 1995, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  W. Leitz,et al.  Computed Tomography Practice in Sweden. Quality Control, Techniques and Patient Dose , 1995 .

[12]  E Tammisalo,et al.  Comprehensive oral X-ray diagnosis: Scanora multimodal radiography. A preliminary description. , 1992, Dento maxillo facial radiology.