Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic Imaging for Zygomatic Implants

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Zygomatic Implants

  • 675 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses the application of volumetric imaging techniques, multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), in the planning of zygomatic implants. The strengths and weaknesses of these modalities are compared. The relevant anatomic structures demonstrated with these modalities are reviewed. Radiological identification of pathology associated with the maxillary-zygomatic complex and adjacent structures is a critical aspect introduced in this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Koong B. Cone beam imaging: is this the ultimate imaging modality? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:1201–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01996.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Bosmans H. Modern dental imaging: a review of the current technology and clinical applications in dental practice. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2637–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1836-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. 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. 2012;113:817–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Angelopoulos C, Aghaloo T. Imaging technology in implant diagnosis. Dent Clin N Am. 2011;55:141–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2010.08.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahmad M, Jenny J, Downie M. Application of cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(Suppl 1):82–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01661.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mupparapu M, Nadeau C. Oral and maxillofacial imaging. Dent Clin North Am. 2017;60:1–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2015.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Scherer MD. Presurgical implant-site assessment and restoratively driven digital planning. Dent Clin N Am. 2014;58:561–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2014.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. White SC, Pharoah MJ. The evolution and application of dental maxillofacial imaging modalities. Dent Clin N Am. 2008;52:689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 7th ed. Missouri: Elsevier Mosby; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(Suppl 1):46–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01657.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K. Comparison of spatial and contrast resolution for cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;114:127–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.01.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schulze R, Heil U, Gro D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, Schoemer E. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:265–73. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomax. 2015;44:20140224. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Loubele M, Van Assche N, Carpentier K, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, Suetens P. Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2008;105:512–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Halperin-Sternfeld M, Machtei E, Horwitz J. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for dimensional linear measurements in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2014;29:593–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fatemitabar S, Nikgoo A. Multichannel computed tomography versus cone-beam computed tomography: linear accuracy of in vitro measurements of the maxilla for implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2010;25:499–505.

    Google Scholar 

  17. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GRJ. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:609–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20140238. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Swennen GRJ, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;130:410–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. SEDENTEXCT. Radiation protection 172: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology - evidence-based guidelines. Eur Comm. 2012;156

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hofmann E, Schmid M, Lell M, Hirschfelder U. Cone beam computed tomography and low-dose multislice computed tomography in orthodontics and dentistry. J Orofac Orthop. 2014;75:384–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-014-0232-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, Souza PC, Martens W, Shahbazian M, Alonso A, Lambrichts I. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:265–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M. 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. 2012;23:1243–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02441.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, Scheske MJ. Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Br Inst Radiol. 2015;44:20140197. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, Marchal G, Sanderink G, Jacobs R. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:461–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2008;106:930–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pauwels R. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2015;165:156–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Evans CA, Scarfe WC, Ahmad M, Cevidanes LHS, Ludlow JB, Palomo JM, White SC, Simmons KE. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;116:238–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Koong B. The basic principles of radiological interpretation. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(Suppl 1):33–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01656.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Carter L, Farman AG, Geist J, Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C, Nair MK, Hildebolt CF, Tyndall D, Shrout M. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology executive opinion statement on performing and interpreting diagnostic cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2008;106:561–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ahmed F, Brooks SL, Kapila SD. Efficacy of identifying maxillofacial lesions in cone-beam computed tomographs by orthodontists and orthodontic residents with third-party software. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;141:451–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.10.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lopes LJ, Gamba TO, Bertinato JVJ, Freitas DQ. Comparison of panoramic radiography and CBCT to identify maxillary posterior roots invading the maxillary sinus. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016;45:20160043. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160043.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Malina-Altzinger J, Damerau G, Grätz KW, Stadlinger PB. Evaluation of the maxillary sinus in panoramic radiography—a comparative study. Int J Implant Dent. 2015;1:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-015-0015-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologist, Envision Medical Imaging, Wembley, WA, Australia

    Bernard Koong

  2. University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

    Bernard Koong

Authors
  1. Bernard Koong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Brånemark Osseointegration Center, Hong Kong SAR, China

    James Chow

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Koong, B. (2020). Diagnostic Imaging for Zygomatic Implants. In: Chow, J. (eds) Zygomatic Implants. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29264-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29264-5_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29263-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29264-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation