Implant treatment planning regarding augmentation procedures: panoramic radiographs vs. cone beam computed tomography images

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 1010-1016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothea C. Dagassan-Berndt ◽  
Nicola U. Zitzmann ◽  
Clemens Walter ◽  
Ralf K. W. Schulze
2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 1076-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bornstein ◽  
Odette Brügger ◽  
Simone Janner ◽  
Ulrike Kuchler ◽  
Vivianne Chappuis ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-27
Author(s):  
Myra Ahmad ◽  
Yasir Ikram Ahmed ◽  
Farheen Qureshi ◽  
Muhammad Sharjeel Ashraf ◽  
Zubair Ahmed Khan ◽  
...  

Objective: To assess jawbone density in terms of Hounsfield units using cone beam computed tomography fordental implant treatment planning in patients reporting to a local tertiary care dental hospital Study Design: Cross sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Fatima Memorial Hospital, Lahore, from Mar to Sep 2018. Methodology: A total of 100 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria and underwent implant placement wereincluded in the study. After ethical approval, informed and written consent, brief history was taken and a singleradiographer exposed and took cone beam computed tomography scan of all the subjects using PLANMECAmachine. A single investigator using PLANMECA software recorded jawbone density in terms of Hounsfieldunits. All data were presented as mean, SD and one way ANOVA was used. Multiple comparisons of the fourregions in the maxilla and mandible were performed with a Tukey test. An independent t-test was also used tocompare gender with age groups and bone density. Results: Total of 100 patients who underwent implant placement were included, 48 (48%) were males & 52 (52%) were females with the mean age of 28.53 ± 5.33 years. The mean jawbone density in terms of Hounsfield units using cone beam computed tomography in anterior maxilla was 709.75 ± 122.63 Hounsfield units, posterior maxilla was 299.66 ± 73.09 Hounsfield units, anterior mandible was 1093.34 ± 109.42 Hounsfield units and posterior mandible was 599.45 ± 135.55 Hounsfield units (p<.001). Conclusion: The anterior mandible and anterior...........


2014 ◽  
Vol 117 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pisha Pittayapat ◽  
Guy Willems ◽  
Ali Alqerban ◽  
Wim Coucke ◽  
Rejane Faria Ribeiro-Rotta ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Liu ◽  
Huan-Yu Chen ◽  
Hamza DoDo ◽  
Hadil Yousef ◽  
Allen R. Firestone ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 410-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Takemura ◽  
Shogo Tanabe ◽  
Mei Tokai ◽  
Shinichi Ueda ◽  
Kimiya Noto ◽  
...  

AbstractAimTo use cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images for treatment planning, the Hounsfield unit (HU)-electron density (ED) calibration table for CBCT should be stable. The purpose of this study was to verify the stability of the HU values for the CBCT system over 1 year and to evaluate the effects of variation in HU-ED calibration curves on dose calculation.Materials and MethodsA tissue characterisation phantom was scanned with the field of view (FOV) of size S (FOV-S) and FOV of size M (FOV-M) using the CBCT system once a month for 1 year. A single field treatment plan was constructed on digital phantom images to validate the dose distribution using mean HU-ED calibration curves and possible variations.ResultsHU values for each material rod over the observation period varied with trend. The HU value of the cortical bone rod decreased by about 100 HU for the FOV-S and by about 300 HU for the FOV-M. Possible variation in the HU-ED calibration curves produced a ≤17·9% dose difference in the dose maximum in the treatment plan.ConclusionsThe CBCT system should be calibrated periodically for consistent dose calculation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document