Predictability of reformatted computed tomography for pre-operative planning of endosseous implants.

OBJECTIVES To determine the reliability of reformatted 2D-CT for pre-operative planning of implant placement. METHODS One hundred consecutive partially or fully edentate patients underwent 2-D reformatted CT pre-operative planning and subsequent implant placement. The number, site and size of the implants, the available bone height and anatomical complications were recorded. The pre-operative planning and the outcome at surgery were compared statistically using a percentage agreement and Kendall's correlation coefficient. RESULTS Agreement between the pre- and intra-operative data was good for the number of implants (60%) and the selected sites (70%). From a total of 416 implants planned, 21 implants could not be placed because of intra-operative findings. Agreement was relatively poor for implant size (44%) and anatomical complications (46%). Kendall's correlation coefficient was highest for the number of implants (0.80) and implant sites (0.81). It was much lower for implant sizes (0.51) and did not reach significance for anatomical complications (0.09). CONCLUSIONS Reformatted 2D-CT is reliable for the pre-operative assessment of the number and sites of implants in the jaws. It is less predictable for the implant size needed and poor for anatomical complications.

[1]  George A. Zarb,et al.  Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry , 1985 .

[2]  M. Vannier,et al.  Spiral (helical) CT. , 1993, Radiology.

[3]  A Schmitt,et al.  Presurgical radiographic assessment for implants. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  Reliability of spiral tomography with the Scanora® technique for dental implant planning , 1993 .

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

[6]  A. C. Richardson,et al.  Interpretation of linear and computed tomograms in the assessment of implant recipient sites. , 1993, Journal of periodontology.

[7]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  Radiographic Planning and Assessment of Endosseous Oral Implants , 1998 .

[8]  S R Matteson,et al.  Clinical usefulness of two-dimensional reformatted and three-dimensionally rendered computerized tomographic images: literature review and a survey of surgeons' opinions. , 1995, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

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

[10]  A C Almendral,et al.  Surgical procedures. , 1981, Current topics in pathology. Ergebnisse der Pathologie.

[11]  James Abrahams,et al.  A Comparison of the Accuracy of Periapical, Panoramic, and Computerized Tomographic Radiographs in Locating the Mandibular Canal , 1997 .

[12]  A Petersson,et al.  Location of the mandibular canal: comparison of macroscopic findings, conventional radiography, and computed tomography. , 1989, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.