These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size.
    Author: Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A.
    Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res; 2011 Apr; 22(4):424-9. PubMed ID: 21054555.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size for three implant systems (Brånemark, Straumann(®), 3i). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Presurgical panoramic (Pan) and cross-sectional tomograms (Tomo) of 121 implant sites in 121 patients scheduled for single-tooth implant treatment were recorded; in 70 of the Pans (Pan-B), a metal ball was placed in the edentulous area. By means of dedicated software, an implant with subjectively determined proper dimensions for the respective site was outlined by manually placing four reference points in each image by three observers. Additionally, four reference points corresponding to the margins of the metal ball were manually placed in Pan-Bs. The length and width of the implant were calculated after calibration to the reference ball (true magnification) in Pan-Bs and to a "standard" calibration method in all images (magnification factor 1.25 in Pans and 1.7 in Tomos). Based on the corrected dimensions, the nearest, smaller implant size was selected among those available in each of the three implant systems. RESULTS: When comparing Pans with Tomos, selected implant size differed in on average 89% of the cases. The length differed in 69% and the width in 66%. Implants planned on Tomos were longer than those planned on Pans in 47% and narrower in 30% (<10% in posterior regions). The Straumann(®) system, with the smallest range of available implant sizes was significantly less affected by the radiographic method compared with the other two systems. CONCLUSION: The selected implant size differed considerably when planned on panoramic or cross-sectional tomographs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]