Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 1/2013

01-01-2013 | Original Article

Comparison of cone-beam and conventional multislice computed tomography for image-guided dental implant planning

Authors: Paul W. Poeschl, Nina Schmidt, Godoberto Guevara-Rojas, Rudolf Seemann, Rolf Ewers, Harald T. Zipko, Kurt Schicho

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the accuracy of cone-beam CT (CBCT) and multislice CT (MSCT) with regard to its use in image-guided dental implant surgery in a prospective model based study.

Material and methods

Ten photopolymer-acrylate mandibula models, each with four precise metal reference markers, were scanned with MSCT and CBCT. The six reference distances between the markers were measured by a three-axis milling machine first. The distances were then measured by (1) navigation with the Medtronic StealthStation® TREON™ image-guided surgery system, (2) with the Medtronic planning-tool and (3) on the PC with the Mimics® software. Mean values were calculated for all three methods for CBCT and MSCT and were compared for statistical significance.

Results

Of all measurements, 83% of the arithmetic mean values were within the ±0.5 mm range (MSCT 88% and CBCT 78%) and 17% within the ±1.0 mm range (MSCT 12% and CBCT 22%). The absolute difference of the arithmetic mean values showed no statistically significant difference between MSCT and CBCT. The difference of the overall mean values to the reference was 0.43 mm for MSCT and 0.46 mm for CBCT.

Conclusions

The data of our study prove that the application of CBCT for the indicated purpose yielded good results comparable to those of MSCT. All three measuring methods were feasible and accuracy was statistically not different between the data acquired by MSCT and CBCT within the setting of this study.
Literature
1.
Mischkowski RA, Zinser MJ, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Keeve E, Zöller JE (2007) Intraoperative navigation in the maxillofacial area based on 3D imaging obtained by a cone-beam device. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:687–694PubMedCrossRef
2.
Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P (2006) Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 72:75–80PubMed
3.
Cohnen M, Kemper J, Möbes O, Pawelzik J, Mödder U (2002) Radiation dose in dental radiology. Eur Radiol 12:634–637PubMed
4.
Ziegler CM, Woertche R, Brief J, Hassfeld S (2002) Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 31:126–130PubMedCrossRef
5.
Pohlenz P, Blessmann M, Blake F, Heinrich S, Schmelzle R, Heiland M (2007) Clinical indications and perspectives for intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:412–417PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zizelmann C, Gellrich NC, Metzger MC, Schoen R, Schmelzeisen R, Schramm A (2007) Computer-assisted reconstruction of orbital floor based on cone beam tomography. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:79–80PubMedCrossRef
7.
Hofmann E, Medelnik J, Fink M, Lell M, Hirschfelder U (2011) Three-dimensional volume tomographic study of the imaging accuracy of impacted teeth: MSCT and CBCT comparison—an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod Mar 4 [Epup ahead of print]
8.
Tantanapornkul W, Okouchi K, Fujiwara Y, Yamashiro M, Maruoka Y, Ohbayashi N, Kurabayashi T (2007) A comparative study of cone-beam computed tomography and conventional panoramic radiography in assessing the topographic relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:253–259PubMedCrossRef
9.
Simon JH, Enciso R, Malfaz JM, Roges R, Bailey-Perry M, Patel A (2006) Differential diagnosis of large periapical lesions using cone-beam computed tomography measurements and biopsy. J Endod 32:833–837PubMedCrossRef
10.
Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG (2007) Limited cone-beam ct and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:114–119PubMedCrossRef
11.
Sorensen SP, Chow PE, Kriminski S, Medin PM, Solberg TD (2006) Image-guided radiotherapy using a mobile kilovoltage X-ray device. Med Dosim 31:40–50PubMedCrossRef
12.
Koong B (2010) Cone beam imaging: is this the ultimate imaging modality? Clin Oral Implants Res 21:1201–1208PubMedCrossRef
13.
Tardieu PB, Vrielinck L, Escolano E, Henne M, Tardieu AL (2007) Computer-assisted implant placement: scan template, simplant, surgiguide, and SAFE system. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 27:141–149
14.
Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A (2004) Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:228–231PubMed
15.
Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM (2004) Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:291–294PubMedCrossRef
16.
Marmulla R, Wortche R, Muhling J, Hassfeld S (2005) Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 Cone Beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 34:28–31PubMedCrossRef
17.
Ludlow JB, Laster WS, See M, Bailey LJ, Hershey HG (2007) Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:534–542PubMedCrossRef
18.
Holberg C, Steinhäuser S, Geis P, Rudzki-Janson I (2005) Cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics: benefits and limitations. J Orofac Orthop 66:434–444PubMedCrossRef
19.
Draenert FG, Gebhart F, Neugebauer C, Coppenrath E, Mueller-Lisse U (2008) Imaging of bone transplants in the maxillofacial area by NewTom 9000 cone-beam computed tomography: a quality assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:e31–e35PubMed
20.
Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S, Howerton WB (2006) Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CBMercury, NewTom 3G and i-Cat. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 35:219–226PubMedCrossRef
21.
Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, Denis K, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Jacobs R (2010) A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT): Part II. On 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 75:270–274PubMedCrossRef
22.
Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, Marchal G, Sanderink G, Jacobs R (2009) Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 71:461–468PubMedCrossRef
23.
IRCP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. IRCP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332
24.
Farman AG (2005) ALARA still applies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 100:395–397PubMedCrossRef
25.
Ngan DC, Kharbanda OP, Geenty JP, Darendeliler MA (2003) Comparison of radiation levels from computed tomography and conventional dental radiographs. Aust Orthod J 19:67–75PubMed
26.
Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G (2004) Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:83–86PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O, Krause J, Kalender W (2011) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Rofo 183:144–153PubMedCrossRef
28.
Ewers R, Schicho K, Undt G, Wanschitz F, Truppe M, Seemann R, Wagner A (2005) Basic research and 12 years of clinical experience in computer-assisted navigation technology: a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34:1–8PubMedCrossRef
29.
Widmann G, Zangerl A, Schullian P, Fasser M, Puelacher W, Bale R (2011) Do image modality and registration method influence the accuracy of craniofacial navigation? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Nov 11. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 22079059
Metadata
Title
Comparison of cone-beam and conventional multislice computed tomography for image-guided dental implant planning
Authors
Paul W. Poeschl
Nina Schmidt
Godoberto Guevara-Rojas
Rudolf Seemann
Rolf Ewers
Harald T. Zipko
Kurt Schicho
Publication date
01-01-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0704-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Clinical Oral Investigations 1/2013 Go to the issue

Original Article

RETRACTED ARTICLE:Melatonin promotes angiogenesis during repair of bone defects: a radiological and histomorphometric study in rabbit tibiae

Original Article

A randomized clinical trial on the clinical and microbiological efficacy of a xanthan gel with chlorhexidine for subgingival use

Review

Scaffold-free microtissues: differences from monolayer cultures and their potential in bone tissue engineering

Original Article

Influence of MMP-8 promoter polymorphism in early osseointegrated implant failure

Original Article

Clinical and microbiological evaluation of high intensity diode laser adjutant to non-surgical periodontal treatment: a 6-month clinical trial

Short Communication

Possible link between Hashimoto's thyroiditis and oral lichen planus: a novel association found