| 1. |
- Correa, Leticia, et al.
(författare)
-
Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : Blackwell Munksgaard. - 0905-7161 .- 1600-0501. ; 25:6, s. 690-695
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: 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. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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
|
|
| 2. |
- Schropp, Lars, et al.
(författare)
-
Early, delayed, or late single implant placement : 10-year results from a randomized controlled clinical trial
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0905-7161 .- 1600-0501. ; 25:12, s. 1359-1365
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: The aim of this study was to present the 10-year clinical and radiographic data from a RCT on single-tooth implants placed early, delayed, or late after tooth extraction. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three patients were randomly allocated to three groups and received an implant on average 10 days (Ea), 3 months (De), or 17 months (La) after tooth extraction. Second-stage surgery was performed after 3 months of submerged healing; metal-ceramic crowns were cemented after one additional month. Standardized periapical radiographs were taken 1 week after implant placement (TP), 1 week (TC) and 1–1.5 year (T1) after crown delivery, and 10 years after implant placement (T10). Pocket depth (PD) and bleeding on probing were registered during controls (TC – T10). Results: Two Ea and one De implants failed to osseointegrate. Seven patients (4 Ea, 1 De, and 2 La) were not available at T10. No significant differences were found among groups regarding implant survival or radiographic peri-implant marginal bone levels (Ea: 1.15 0.77; De: 1.53 1.06; La: 1.42 1.07) at T10. Similarly, no differences were observed among groups in the number of implants with PD ≥5 mm (Ea: 29%; De: 35%; La: 44%) or the average depth of the sites with PD ≥5 mm (Ea: 5.4 0.7; De: 6.1 1.4; La: 5.4 0.5) at T10. Peri-implant mucositis was found in 70% of the cases; peri-implantitis was diagnosed only in two implants (1 De, 1 La) corresponding to 4.3%. Conclusion: Single-tooth implants placed early or delayed after tooth extraction show high survival rates and limited peri-implant marginal bone resorption or biological complications, similar to what is observed with implants placed according to the conventional (late) protocol.
|
|
