Exposure of Barriers Used in GBR: Rate, Timing, Management, And Its Effect on Grafted Bone. A Retrospective Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiddee Poomprakobsri ◽  
Joseph Y Kan ◽  
Kitichai Rungcharassaeng ◽  
Jaime Lozada
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽  
Dimensional Change ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Exposure Rate ◽  
Titanium Mesh ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Computed Tomography Images ◽  
Placement Procedure

The purpose of this study is to compare exposure rate of three different barrier types after a guided-bone regenerationprocedure, as well as to compare the percentage grafted bone dimensional loss with and without exposed barriers. Patient records from September 2007 to May 2015 were reviewed to identify subjects that had received bone graft and then implant placement procedure after the graft is completely healed. The subjects were divided into 3 groups: 1) resorbable barrier 2) non-resorbable barrier, and 3) titanium-mesh barrier. Incidences of barrier exposure were recorded.  Cone-beam computed tomography images before treatment (T0), right after grafting (T1), and after healing (T2) were used to determine percentage grafted bone dimensional loss (%) and quantitative grafted bone remained (mm 2 ). Three cross-sectioned areas, at 1mm apart, of preplanned implant positions at the grafted site were measured on cone-beam computed tomography to calculate for grafted bone remained and grafted bone dimensional change. The exposure rate of all guided bone regeneration was 36.9%. Exposure rate of resorbable barrier (23.3%) is significantly lower than Titanium mesh (68.9%) and Non-resorbable (72.7%) (Chi-Square, P < .001).  The result from this study revealed that barrier types have significant effect on exposure rate. There was also a significant different in grafted bone dimensional loss in sites with barrier exposure (58.3%) and sites with no barrier exposure (44.1%) during the healing period (Mann-Whitney U, P = .008).

scholarly journals Evaluation of Different Bone Types Prevalence on Implant Placement Site Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 164-170
Author(s):  
Amir Eskandarloo ◽  
Karim Ghazikhanloo ◽  
Leyli Tapak ◽  
Hamed Sartipi ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Computed Tomography Images

scholarly journals Identification of the Procedural Accidents During Root Canal Preparation Using Digital Intraoral Radiography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-329
Author(s):  
K.-Ivácson A.- Csinszka ◽  
Monea Adriana Maria ◽  
Monea Monica ◽  
Pop Mihai ◽  
Borda Angela
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Root Canal Preparation ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Computed Tomography Images ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Digital Intraoral Radiography

AbstractCrown or root perforation, ledge formation, fractured instruments and perforation of the roots are the most important accidents which appear during endodontic therapy. Our objective was to evaluate the value of digital intraoral periapical radiographs compared to cone beam computed tomography images (CBCT) used to diagnose some procedural accidents. Material and methods: Eleven extracted molars were used in this study. A total of 18 perforations and 13 ledges were created artifically and 10 instruments were fractured in the root canals. Digital intraoral periapical radiographs from two angles and CBCT scans were made with the teeth fixed in position. The images were evaluated and the number of detected accidents were stated in percentages. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi square-test. Results: On digital periapical radiographs the evaluators identified 12 (66.66%) perforations, 10 (100 %) separated instruments and 10 (76.9%) created ledges. The CBCT scans made possible the recognition of 17 (94.66 %) perforations, 9 (90 %) separated instruments and 13 (100%) ledges. The totally recognized accidental procedures showed significant differences between the two groups. (p<0.05) Conclusion: Digital periapical radiographs are the most common imaging modalities used during endodontic treatments. Though, the CBCT allows a better identification of the procedural accidents.

scholarly journals Oral and maxillofacial anatomical structures acknowledgment through cone beam computed tomography images – a teaching practice experience

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-171
Author(s):  
Solange Kobayashi-Velasco ◽  
Fernanda Cristina Sales Salineiro ◽  
Ivan Onone Gialain ◽  
Wellington Hideaki Yanaguizawa ◽  
Marcelo Gusmão Paraiso Cavalcanti
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽  
Teaching Practice ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Anatomical Structures ◽  
Practice Experience ◽  
Computed Tomography Images

O objetivo deste estudo foi relatar uma metodologia de ensino de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico (TCFC) aplicada a estudantes de graduação, avaliando o conhecimento de estruturas anatômicas do complexo dentomaxilofacial. Os estudantes foram orientados quanto às estruturas anatômicas e às aplicações clínicas da TCFC em aulas teóricas e práticas, compreendendo 45 horas de aula. Foram submetidos a duas avaliações, a primeira na metade do semestre, e a segunda no término do semestre. Os escores das avaliações (três variáveis: 1) nome, 2) lado - esquerdo/direito e 3) reconstruções multiplanares (RMP) - imagens ortogonais de identificação) foram comparados para verificar se houve melhora na aprendizagem. Testes de medianas e Wilcoxon compararam os exames intermediário e final. Os valores medianos para a variável 1 foram 6,0 (intermediário) e 8,0 (final). Em relação à variável 2, a mediana variou de 9,0 (intermediário) a 10,0 (final). Quando os resultados da variável 3 foram analisados, ambas as medianas foram 10,0. Houve diferença significativa (teste de Wilcoxon, p<0,05) quando foram comparados os exames intermediário e final, nas três categorias. Correlações lineares foram estabelecidas entre as três categorias e foram estatisticamente significantes para duas associações (“nome da estrutura anatômica” com “lado da estrutura anatômica” e “nome da estrutura anatômica” com “imagens da MPR”). Os estudantes de graduação apresentaram uma melhora em termos do reconhecimento correto das estruturas anatômicas, nome e lado, bem como imagens de MPR quando comparadas as duas avaliações.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document