Correa Leticia Ruhland, Spin-Neto Rubens, Stavropoulos Andreas, Schropp Lars, da Silveira Heloísa Emília Dias, Wenzel Ann
Department of Dentistry - Oral Radiology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jun;25(6):690-5. doi: 10.1111/clr.12126. Epub 2013 Feb 26.
To compare the implant size (width and length) planned with digital panoramic radiographs, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-generated panoramic views, or CBCT cross-sectional images, in four implant systems.
Seventy-one patients with a total of 103 implant sites in the upper premolar and/or lower molar regions were examined with digital panoramic radiography (D-PAN) and (CBCT). A metal ball 5 mm in diameter was placed in the edentulous area for the D-PAN. CBCT data sets were reformatted to a 10-mm thick CBCT panoramic view (CBCT-pan) and 1-mm cross-sections (CBCT-cross). Measurements were performed in the images using dedicated software. All images were displayed on a monitor and assessed by three observers who outlined a dental implant by placing four reference points in the site of the implant-to-be. Differences in width and length of the implant-to-be from the three modalities were analyzed. The implant size selected in the CBCT-cross images was then compared to that selected in the other two modalities (D-PAN and CBCT-pan) for each of the implant systems separately.
The implant-to-be (average measurements among observers) was narrower when measured in CBCT-cross compared with both D-PAN and CBCT-Pan. For premolar sites, the width also differed significantly between D-PAN and CBCT-pan modalities. The implant-to-be was also significantly shorter when recorded in CBCT-cross than in D-PAN. In premolar sites, there were no significant differences in implant length among the three image modalities. It mattered very little for the change in implant step sizes whether CBCT-cross was compared to D-PAN or CBCT-pan images.
Our results show that the selected implant size differs when planned on panoramic or cross-section CBCT images. In most cases, implant size measured in cross-section images was narrower and shorter than implant size measured in a panoramic image or CBCT-based panoramic view.
比较在四种种植系统中，利用数字化全景X线片、锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）生成的全景视图或CBCT横断面图像所规划的种植体尺寸（宽度和长度）。
对71例患者共103个上颌前磨牙和/或下颌磨牙区域的种植位点进行数字化全景X线摄影（D-PAN）和CBCT检查。在无牙区放置一个直径5mm的金属球用于D-PAN检查。将CBCT数据集重新格式化为10mm厚的CBCT全景视图（CBCT-pan）和1mm横断面（CBCT-cross）。使用专用软件在图像中进行测量。所有图像均显示在监视器上，由三名观察者进行评估，他们通过在待种植位点放置四个参考点来勾勒出牙种植体。分析三种方式下待种植体宽度和长度的差异。然后针对每种种植系统，分别将CBCT-cross图像中选择的种植体尺寸与其他两种方式（D-PAN和CBCT-pan）中选择的尺寸进行比较。
与D-PAN和CBCT-Pan相比，在CBCT-cross中测量时，待种植体（观察者间平均测量值）更窄。对于前磨牙位点，D-PAN和CBCT-pan方式之间的宽度也有显著差异。在CBCT-cross中记录的待种植体也比在D-PAN中显著更短。在前磨牙位点，三种图像方式下种植体长度无显著差异。将CBCT-cross与D-PAN或CBCT-pan图像进行比较时，种植体步长的变化影响很小。
我们的结果表明，在全景或横断面CBCT图像上规划时，所选种植体尺寸不同。在大多数情况下，横断面图像中测量的种植体尺寸比全景图像或基于CBCT的全景视图中测量的种植体尺寸更窄、更短。
