Influence of 2D vs 3D imaging and professional experience on dental implant treatment planning
- 187 Downloads
This study investigated whether professional experience and type of image examination (panoramic radiography (PAN) or cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)) could influence the pre-surgical planning for dental implant treatment.
Materials and methods
Six dentists, from two different levels of experience (senior (Sr) and junior (Jr)) performed simulated pre-surgical planning by using PANs and after 1 month, by using CBCTs, considering implant length (IL), implant width (IW), need for bone graft (BG), and other surgical procedures (OP). Bland-Altman test and Kappa coefficient were used to identify agreements.
Bland-Altman test showed good agreement in the plans for inter-professional (i.e., Sr vs Jr) comparisons. Bland-Altman plots displayed intra-observer agreement (i.e., differences between PAN and CBCT), showing discrepancy between imaging modalities for IL and a tendency towards selecting larger dental implant options when using PAN and smaller options with CBCT. Kappa showed almost perfect (0.81–1.0) agreement between Jr and Sr for OP (PAN and CBCT). For BG, agreement was substantial (0.61–0.80) when planning was done with PAN and CBCT. Descriptive statistics showed evidence that when Jrs used CBCT, they no longer indicated the BG they had planned when they used PAN.
There were differences in the pre-surgical planning for treatment with dental implants depending on the professional experience and the type of imaging examination used.
Variation in dental implant planning can affect treatment time, cost, and morbidity in patients.
KeywordsCone beam tomography Dental implants Treatment plan Professional experience Digital dentistry
We would like to thank Clínica DVI (Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil), RadioMemory Company (Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil).
The work was supported by the Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics and Departament of Stomatology, Public Health, and Forensic Dentistry in the University of São Paulo, SP, Brazil. CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Education—Personnel) for the financial support provided for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with direct human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Access to diagnostic image database was approved by institutional research committee approved ethically under the number 47779215.8.0000.5419.
For this type of study, no formal consent is required.
- 2.Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R, Lekholm U, Nakielny R, van Steenberghe D, van der Stelt P, European Association for Osseointegration (2002) E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:566–570. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130518.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M (2012) E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:1243–1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02441.x4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Monsour PA, Dudhia R (2008) Implant radiography and radiology. Aust Dent J. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00037.x
- 5.Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC (2012) Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 113(6):817–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005
- 6.Bou Serhal C, Jacobs R, Persoons M, Hermans R, van Steenberghe D (2000) The accuracy of spiral tomography to assess bone quantity for the preoperative planning of implants in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:242–247. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003242.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Correa LR, Spin-Neto R, Stavropoulos A, Schropp L, da Silveira HED, Wenzel A (2014) Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:690–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Gazelle GS, Kessler L, Lee DW, McGinn T, Menzin J, Neumann PJ, van Amerongen D, White LA, Working Group on Comparative Effectiveness Research for Imaging (2011) A framework for assessing the value of diagnostic imaging in the era of comparative effectiveness research. Radiology 261(3):692–698. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser UC, Bernard J-P (2007) Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:81–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01402.x Google Scholar
- 15.Engelhardt S, Papacosta P, Rathe F, Özen J, Jansen JA, Junker R (2014) Annual failure rates and marginal bone-level changes of immediate compared to conventional loading of dental implants. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 26:671–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Olmedo-Gaya MV, Manzano-Moreno FJ, Cañaveral-Cavero E, de Dios Luna-del Castillo J, Vallecillo-Capilla M (2016) Risk factors associated with early implant failure: a 5-year retrospective clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 115:150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Flores-Mir C, Rosenblatt MR, Major PW, Carey JP, Heo G (2014) Measurement accuracy and reliability of tooth length on conventional and CBCT reconstructed panoramic radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod 19(5):45–53. https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.19.5.045-053.oar CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Rimondini L (2007) Autogenous onlay bone grafts vs. alveolar distraction osteogenesis for the correction of vertically deficiente edentulous ridges: a 2-4-year prospective study on humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:432–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01351.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Felice P, Pistilli R, Lizio G, Pellegrino G, Nisii A, Marchetti C (2009) Inlay versus onlay iliac bone grafting in atrophic posterior mandible: a prospective controlled clinical trial for the comparison of two techniques. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 11:69–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00212.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Dau M, Edalatpour A, Schulze R, Al-Nawas B, Alshihri A, Kämmerer PW (2017) Presurgical evaluation of bony implant sites using panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography—influence of medical education. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 46(2):20160081. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Simpson AH, Howie CR, Norrie J (2017) Surgical trial design—learning curve and surgeon volume: determining whether inferior results are due to the procedure itself, or delivery of the procedure by the surgeon. Bone Joint Res 6:194–195. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.64.bjr-2017-0051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar