Comparison Between Conventional Radiography and 3D Volumetric Imaging for Location of Mandibular Canal: In Vivo Study

Chakraborty, Rakashree; Panchbhai, Aarti; Bhowate, Rahul; Sen, Sourav

doi:10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_62_17

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Proximity of mandibular posterior implant sites to the inferior alveolar canal was assessed using coronal cuts in DVT and findings were comparable to the study by Lindh and Petersson et al [17] With reference to ease of visibility of mandibular canal, canal was clearly visible in 8 implant sites (61.53%), diffusely visible in 3 (20.07%) implant sites and not visible at 2 sites (15.38%) findings are comparable to the study by Chakraborty R. et al [18] Presence of bony concavities alters the path way of implant placement. Its presence warns the surgeon to alter the orientation of implant to avoid cortical plate perforation and be ready with augmentation procedures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Assessment of Maxillo-Mandibular Implant Sites by Digitized Volumetric Tomography

Dubey¹,

Dangore–Khasbage²,

Bhowate³

2019

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDRadiographic examination plays a vital role in pre-evaluation of implant site for assessing the amount of bone available and to assess the proximity of implant site to vital anatomical structures. We wanted to assess maxillo-mandibular implant sites by Digitized Volumetric Tomography. METHODSThis cross-sectional study included 36 implant sites in 25 healthy subjects. All the sites were evaluated by measuring the height and width of the available alveolar ridge, the proximity to maxillary sinus as well as inferior alveolar canal, the width of the cortical plates and by evaluating visibility of mandibular canal by using Digitized Volumetric Tomography. RESULTS (63.88%) were maxillary implant sites and 13 (36.11%) were mandibular sites. The presence of type A bone was found to be maximum at implant sites. Out of 20 maxillary posterior implant sites, 2 (10%) sites belonged to SA1 group, 7 (35%) sites to SA2 group, 8 sites to SA3 group and 3 sites to SA4 group. At 8 sites, mandibular canal was clearly visible. Significant difference is observed between buccal cortical width of maxilla and mandible (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONSDigitized Volumetric Tomography successfully showed the presence and proximity of vital surrounding structures and anatomical variations. This can be used in assessment of implant site and thus helps in successful implant placement with excellent prognosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%