Quantification of circumferential bone level and extraction socket dimensions using different imaging and estimation methods: a comparative study

Abstract

Objective No studies have yet evaluated linear alveolar bone levels and extraction socket dimensions on dry skulls using different techniques. We aimed to investigate the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), digital radiography, and digital photography. Methods Circumferential linear alveolar bone level measurements were performed at six sites on the examined teeth using gutta-percha points placed for reference at the cementoenamel junction and alveolar bone crest. Dimensions of the extraction socket were evaluated by linear measurements in the mesiodistal and buccolingual directions. Groups were formed according to the following imaging and estimation techniques: (1) direct measurement using digital calipers under loupe magnification (gold standard); (2) direct measurement using only digital calipers; (3) digital photographs/ImageJ (Photo/I); (4) digital paralleling long-cone periapical radiographs/ImageJ (Periapical/I); (5) digital panoramic radiographs/digital calipers; (6) digital panoramic radiographs/digital calipers and loupe magnification; (7) digital panoramic radiographs/ImageJ; and (8) CBCT/ImageJ (CBCT/I).Results Statistical analyses showed significant differences for all panoramic radiography subgroups in all examined regions compared with the gold standard (p \ 0.001). Results of the CBCT/I (r = 0.930, p \ 0.01), periapical/I (r = 0.939, p \ 0.01), and Photo/I (r = 0.978, p \ 0.01) techniques showed high correlation with the gold standard. Reliability of repeated measurements was higher with loupe magnification and the image-processing program.Conclusions Periapical/I and CBCT provide promising results in analyses of the dimensions and relations of periodontal tissues. Routine clinical digital photographs can be converted to scaled images and applied to treatment planning and preoperative-postoperative comparisons.

Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review

“…Of those, two were clinical (Eachempati et al., ; Luk, Pow, Li & Chow, ) and 20 ex vivo investigations. The ex vivo studies included 14 studies on dry jaws/skulls (Al‐Ekrish, ; Al‐Ekrish & Ekram, ; Al‐Ekrish, Ekram, Al Faleh, Alkhader & Al‐Sadhan, ; Alkan, Aral, Aral, Acer & Şişman, ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Kamburoglu, Kilic, Ozen & Yuksel, ; Luangchana, Pornprasertsuk‐Damrongsri, Kiattavorncharoen & Jirajariyavej, ; Neves, Vasconcelos, Campos, Haiter‐Neto & Freitas, ; Pena de Andrade, Valerio, de Oliveira Monteiro, de Carvalho Machado & Manzi, ; Sheikhi, Dakhil‐Alian & Bahreinian, ; Torres, Campos, Segundo, Navarro & Crusoe‐Rebello, ; Vasconcelos, Neves, Moraes & Freitas, ; Veyre‐Goulet, Fortin & Thierry, ; Waltrick et al., ) and six cadaver studies (Ganguly et al., ; Gerlach et al., , ; Kobayashi, Shimoda, Nakagawa & Yamamoto, ; Loubele et al., ; Santana et al., ).…”

“…The two included clinical studies assessed edentulous sites of patients prior to dental implant treatment (Eachempati et al., ; Luk et al., ). The majority of the selected studies used dry human mandibles as the sample (Al‐Ekrish, ; Alkan et al., ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Kamburoglu et al., ; Kobayashi et al., ; Neves et al., ; Pena de Andrade et al., ; Sheikhi et al., ; Torres et al., ; Vasconcelos et al., ; Waltrick et al., ). Two studies used both the maxilla and mandible of dry skulls (Abboud et al., ; Al‐Ekrish & Ekram, ; Luangchana et al., ), and one study used only three dry maxillae (Veyre‐Goulet et al., ).…”

“…Seven of the ex vivo studies placed the dry jaws/skulls in a container with water to simulate the effects of soft tissue for CBCT imaging (Alkan et al., ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Neves et al., ; Sheikhi et al., ; Torres et al., ; Vasconcelos et al., ; Veyre‐Goulet et al., ), while Luangchana et al. covered the jaws entirely in acrylic resin for that purpose (Luangchana et al., ).…”

“…Of the authors that aimed solely to evaluate the accuracy of CBCT, some used one single machine and fixed acquisition parameters (Gerlach et al., , ; Kamburoglu et al., ; Kobayashi et al., ; Veyre‐Goulet et al., ), while others evaluated the effect of different scan parameters (Al‐Ekrish, ; Ganguly et al., ; Neves et al., ; Torres et al., ; Waltrick et al., ), different reconstruction software (Vasconcelos et al., ), or different monitors (Al‐Ekrish et al., ) on linear accuracy. Furthermore, in several studies the authors’ primary objective was to compare the accuracy of CBCT with other radiographic or clinical diagnostic tests (Al‐Ekrish & Ekram, ; Alkan et al., ; Eachempati et al., ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Loubele et al., ; Luangchana et al., ; Luk et al., ; Pena de Andrade et al., ; Santana et al., ; Sheikhi et al., ).…”

“…The mean difference was used in 12 studies (Alkan et al., ; Eachempati et al., ; Freire‐Maia et al., ; Gerlach et al., ; Loubele et al., ; Luangchana et al., ; Luk et al., ; Pena de Andrade et al., ; Santana et al., ; Torres et al., ; Vasconcelos et al., ; Veyre‐Goulet et al., ), two studies presented the mean absolute difference (Ganguly et al., ; Gerlach et al., ), and one study also presented the mean relative difference as a percentage (Gerlach et al., ).…”