» Articles » PMID: 29744148

Influence of Image-viewers and Artifacts on Implant Length Measurements in Cone-beam Computed Tomography: an Study

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2018 May 11
PMID 29744148
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This preclinical study compared the accuracy of implant lengths measured in two different image-viewers, and examined whether implant-induced artifacts affected the implant length measurements on CBCT images. A resin edentulous mandibular model, with multiple adjacent implants in the posterior segments, was acquired with a CBCT machine. In two different image-viewers, two observers independently measured the implant length. Vertical measurements on CBCT images were carried out twice at each session, and repeated one week later. The results demonstrated no significant differences between actual and measured implant lengths. The differences in the mean error for vertical measurements using the two different image-viewers (cross-sectional images: OsiriX viewer = -0.01 ± 0.03 mm, NewTom viewer = -0.05 ± 0.09 mm, -value = 0.056; sagittal images: OsiriX viewer = -0.03 ± 0.04 mm; NewTom viewer = -0.04 ± 0.10 mm, -value = 0.24) were not statistically significant. This investigation suggests that the accuracy of implant length measurements on CBCT images was not influenced by image-viewers or by the presence of implant-induced artifacts. The presence of multiple adjacent implants in the posterior segments of the mandible is not likely to impact the measurements made between the implant apex and vital structures on CBCT images.

Citing Articles

Mesiodistal Measurements for Dental Implant Planning: A Prospective Clinical Study of Linear Measurements on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images in Comparison with Caliper-Based Measurements on Plaster Casts.

Vazquez L, Buser R, Carrel J Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10(9).

PMID: 36135164 PMC: 9497640. DOI: 10.3390/dj10090169.


Influence of image-viewers and artifacts on implant length measurements in cone-beam computed tomography: an study.

Vazquez L, Srinivasan M, Khouja F, Combescure C, Carrel J Clin Exp Dent Res. 2018; 2(1):44-50.

PMID: 29744148 PMC: 5839189. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.18.

References
1.
Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard J . 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. 2007; 19(1):81-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01402.x. View

2.
de Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen G . 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(6):609-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.028. View

3.
Maloney K, Bastidas J, Freeman K, Olson T, Kraut R . Cone beam computed tomography and SimPlant materialize dental software versus direct measurement of the width and height of the posterior mandible: an anatomic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69(7):1923-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.01.003. View

4.
Lagravere M, Low C, Flores-Mir C, Chung R, Carey J, Heo G . Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of landmark identification on digitized lateral cephalograms and formatted 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(5):598-604. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.018. View

5.
Tyndall D, Price J, Tetradis S, Ganz S, Hildebolt C, Scarfe W . 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(6):817-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005. View