Subjective image quality assessment of cross sectional imaging methods for the symphyseal region of the mandible prior to dental implant placement.

OBJECTIVES A three dimensional appreciation of the form of the anterior mandible is required to place dental implants safely in the region. This study compared the subjective image quality of four available methods of cross sectional imaging of the symphyseal region, the lateral cephalometric view, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), spiral tomography and the transymphyseal X-ray view. METHODS An experimental water phantom was developed to reproduce human soft tissue around the mandible. Images were taken of four mandibles by the four X-ray techniques. Three different CBCT machines were included. The source of each image was disguised by displaying all images in the same format on the same computer screen. A protocol was developed to process the images for viewing whilst preserving their image quality. A panel of observers of ten dentists viewed the images and rated their image quality by recording their agreement with six statements on a five point Likert scale. RESULTS The results showed a statistically significant difference in image quality between imaging methods. There were clear differences in the ratings between the three cone beam computed tomography machines. Small volume, high resolution CBCT provided images with the highest scores for subjective image quality. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study, significant differences in subjective image quality were found between imaging systems used for cross sectional imaging for the symphyseal region of the mandible prior to dental implant placement.

[1]  H. Gröndahl,et al.  On the dynamic range of different X-ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. A comparison of image quality in film, charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems. , 1996, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[2]  Christos D R Kalpidis,et al.  Hemorrhaging associated with endosseous implant placement in the anterior mandible: a review of the literature. , 2004, Journal of periodontology.

[3]  Gabriela Salatino Liedke,et al.  Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. , 2009, Journal of endodontics.

[4]  D A Tyndall,et al.  Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. , 2000, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[5]  N. Pigadas,et al.  Massive sublingual haematoma following osseo-integrated implant placement in the anterior mandible , 2009, BDJ.

[6]  M. Gardner,et al.  Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. , 1986, British medical journal.

[7]  B. Baksi.  Measurement accuracy and perceived quality of imaging systems for the evaluation of periodontal structures , 2008, Odontology.

[8]  N B Pitts,et al.  Selection criteria for dental radiography' , 1992, British Dental Journal.

[9]  J. Ludlow,et al.  Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. , 2008, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[10]  J. Cawood,et al.  A classification of the edentulous jaws. , 1988, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[11]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  E.A.O. guidelines fo the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. , 2002, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[13]  H. Gröndahl,et al.  Endodontic measurements in digital radiographs acquired by a photostimulable, storage phosphor system. , 1996, Endodontics & dental traumatology.

[14]  P F van der Stelt,et al.  Effect of number of projections on image quality of local CT. , 2004, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[15]  K N Lohr,et al.  Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. , 1996, Clinical therapeutics.

[16]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography. , 2000, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[17]  Fawad Javed,et al.  The role of primary stability for successful immediate loading of dental implants. A literature review. , 2010, Journal of dentistry.

[18]  P. Moynihan,et al.  A qualitative study on patient perspectives of how conventional and implant-supported dentures affect eating. , 2009, Journal of dentistry.

[19]  Ignace Naert,et al.  The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. , 2003, Quintessence international.

[20]  T D Taylor,et al.  The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. , 2002, Gerodontology.

[21]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[22]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. , 2010, European journal of radiology.