Cone-beam images could be used for implant planning, taking into account a maximal 4 degrees angular and 2.4 mm linear deviation at the apical tip.

Orofacial diagnostic imaging has grown dramatically in recent years. As the use of endosseous implants has revolutionized oral rehabilitation, a specialized technique has become available for the preoperative planning of oral implant placement: cone beam computed tomography (CT). This imaging technology provides 3D and cross-sectional views of the jaws. It is obvious that this hardware is not in the same class as CT machines in cost, size, weight, complexity, and radiation dose. It is thus considered to be the examination of choice when making a risk-benefit assessment. The present review deals with imaging modalities available for preoperative planning purposes with a specific focus on the use of the cone beam CT and software for planning of oral implant surgery. It is apparent that cone beam CT is the medium of the future, thus, many changes will be performed to improve these. Any adaptation of the future systems should go hand in hand with a further dose optimalization.

For management of postoperative complications for moderate-risk cases of impacted mandibular third molars, careful preoperative radiographic planning followed by an atraumatic surgical approach seems to be valuable, irrespective of the 2D or 3D nature of the preoperative images.

No abstract

This review evaluates the evidence for the diagnostic efficacy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for impacted teeth and associated features. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched using specific indexing terms and reference lists were hand searched. Two reviewers selected relevant publications on the basis of pre-determined inclusion criteria. Original studies were assessed using a modification of the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) tool. The literature search yielded 96 titles, of which 7 were included in the review. There was only limited evidence for diagnostic efficacy expressed as sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Only two studies compared CBCT and panoramic radiographs with a valid reference method and presented the results in terms of percentage of correct diagnoses. This review reveals a need for studies that meet methodological standards for diagnostic efficacy of CBCT in the diagnosis of impacted teeth.