Refine your search
Collections
Year
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Khurana, Astha
- A Comparative Measurement of Edentulous Bone Between Cone Beam Computed Tomography vs. Dentascan CT in Implant Patients: In Vivo Study
Abstract Views :139 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Professor and Head, Department of Prosthodontics, IDS Dental College and Research Centre, Bareilly – 243006, IN
2 Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Hazaribagh College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Hazaribagh – 825301, IN
3 3rd Year Post Graduate Student, IDS Dental College and Research Centre, Bareilly – 243006, IN
1 Professor and Head, Department of Prosthodontics, IDS Dental College and Research Centre, Bareilly – 243006, IN
2 Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Hazaribagh College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Hazaribagh – 825301, IN
3 3rd Year Post Graduate Student, IDS Dental College and Research Centre, Bareilly – 243006, IN
Source
Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section), Vol 36, No 1 (2022), Pagination: 9-15Abstract
Aim: To compare the linear and mesiodistal measurement of alveolar edentulous bone between CBCT and Dentascan CT. Vivo-comparative study. Materials and Methods: 30 implant patients were selected among the partially edentulous ridge in pre-maxillary region. After using a radiographic stent splint (3×3 mm square), a CBCT and Dentascan was scanned. Linear and mesiodistal radiographic evaluations were performed from a built-in software tool. The student unpaired t-test was used for finding significant difference in between and within group. P-value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: Linear Radiographic Evaluation by Dentascan was 20.75 ± 2.14 and by CBCT was 20.86 ± 2.18, Mesiodistal Radiographic Evaluation by Dentascan was 6.71 ± 0.70 and by CBCT was 6.79 ± 0.70. Conclusion: The linear assessment of the implant site taken on Dentascan was almost similar to that recorded on CBCT and P-value is not significant (>0.05).Keywords
Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), Dentascan CT, Mesiodistal and Sagital Buccolingual Measurement and Pre-maxilla
References
- Suvarna PV, Jaju PP, Subramaniam AV, Jain S. Density evaluation of pre-implant sites by dentascan software. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ. 2010; 2:4–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231- 0754.89983
- Singhal MK, Vaish S, Agarwal K, Mendiratta M, Singh AN, Gangwar S. A CT Scan and the panoramic X-Ray in pre-operative implant assessment: A vivo study. JPFA (India section). 2020; 15(1):132–43.
- Sahai S. Recent advances in imaging technologies in implant dentistry. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ. 2015; 7:19–26. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0754.172927
- Saavedra-Abril JA, Balhen-Martin C, Zaragoza-Velasco K, Kimura-Hayama ET, Saavedra S, Stoopen ME. Dental multisection CT for the placement of oral implants: Technique and applications. Radiographics. 2010; 30(7):1975–91. PMid: 21057130. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.307105026
- Kapadia Y, Jain V. Radiopacity of dental materials used for imaging guides in implant dentistry. EC Dental Science. 2018; 17:6–8.
- Chandel S, Singh N, Agrawal A, Singh H, Nandakumar H. Feasibility of Dentascan in planning of implant surgery in posterior maxilla and mandible. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2017;
- Marakala VR, Allu S, Pittala VC. Determination of the accuracy of imaging methods to evaluate bone in maxilla for implant placement - An invitro study. J Oral Med Oral Surg Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018; 4(1):1–10. https://doi. org/10.18231/2395-6194.2018.0001
- Abrahams JJCT. Assessment of dental implant planning. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 1992; 4:1–18. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1042-3699(20)30568-9
- Sutaria FB, Shah DN, Chauhan CJ, Solanki JS, Bhatti KA. Comparative evaluation of various methods of assessing residual alveolar ridge width prior to dental implant placement: An in vivo study. J Dent Implant. 2019; 9:12–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jdi.jdi_19_17
- Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2018; 29:393–415. PMid: 30328204. https:// doi.org/10.1111/clr.13142m
- Ganguly R, Ramesh A, Pagni S. The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in conebeam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016; 46:93–101. PMid: 27358816 PMCid: PMC4925656. https://doi.org/10.5624/ isd.2016.46.2.93
- Visconti MA, Verner FS, Assis NM, Devito KL. Influence of maxillomandibular positioning in cone beam computed tomography for implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 42:880–6. PMid: 23566433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijom.2013.03.001
- Shenoy VK. Single tooth implants: Pretreatment considerations and pretreatment evaluation. J Interdiscip Dentistry. 2012; 2(3):149–57. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229- 5194.113239
- Singhal MK, Billing RK, Srivastava N, Khan Z. A 2D panoramic surgical stent imaging: Complete arch mandibular implant fixed prosthesis along with bar supported maxillary over denture. Contemp Clin Dent. 2017; 8:332–6. PMid: 28839424 PMCid: PMC5551343. https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_472_17
- Loubele M, Van Assche N, Carpentier K, Maes F, Jacobs R, Steenberghe VD et al. 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 Endod. 2008; 105:512–8. PMid: 17900939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.004
- Lechuga L, Weidlich GA. Cone Beam CT vs. Fan Beam CT: A comparison of image quality and dose delivered between two differing CT imaging modalities. Cureus. 2016; 8(9): e778.