Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1788613
The Precision of All-on-Four Implant Position Recorded from Three Different CBCT Machines

Abstract
Objective To investigate the dimensional discrepancy and degree of deviation of All-on-Four implant position between different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) machines.
Materials and Methods Four implants (4.5 × 10 mm Superline II, Dentium, South Korea) were placed in an All-on-Four style in an artificial mandible. The jaw was radiated 30 times using three different CBCT machines (Rainbow CT, Dentium; Veraview X800, Morita, Japan; Planmeca Viso G3, Planmeca OY, Finland). A total of 30 Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files were exported, n = 10. All-on-Four implants from each DICOM file were segmented and exported as an STL file (three-dimensional image) using Blue Sky Plan software (version 4.12.13/Blue Sky Bio, United States). All-on-Four implant zone dimensions (X, Y, and Z axes) and the total degree of deviation between All-on-Four implants per CBCT machine were measured using Autodesk Meshmixer software (version 3.5.474/California, United States). The data distribution's normality and variances' equality were tested with Shapiro–Wilk's and Levene's tests, respectively (p-value < 0.05). Data were analyzed using Brown–Forsythe one-way analysis of variance and Tamhane's post hoc tests to compare the differences between the groups (p-value <0.05).
Results The respective X, Y, and Z mean dimensions of the All-on-Four implant zone were: Dentium (34.95, 14.71, and 9.97); Morita (34.88, 14.74, and 10.56); and Planmeca (34.73, 15.15, and 12.33). Significant differences between CBCT machines were found in all axes (p-value < 0.05); however, the Z-axis had the most differences. Notably, Planmeca exhibited the highest standard deviation (SD) in all axes (0.16–0.35), exhibiting the lowest consistency in the CBCT machines' readings. The Dentium exhibited the lowest deviation in the implant position, with the lowest SD (0.61). A significant difference in the total degree of deviation was spotted when only Morita was included in the comparison (p-value < 0.05).
Conclusion This study's findings are of significant importance as they reveal that the implant position recorded from the CBCT machines was most discrepant in the buccolingual dimension (Z-axis). Planmeca exhibited the least implant-dimensional accuracy of the CBCT machines, while Dentium exhibited the highest implant position accuracy. These results could significantly impact the choice of CBCT machine for implant placement, especially since an accurate CBCT image is crucial for digital implant planning.
Publication History
Article published online:
23 July 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (Suppl. 16) 393-415
- 2 Egbert N, Cagna DR, Ahuja S, Wicks RA. Accuracy and reliability of stitched cone-beam computed tomography images. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45 (01) 41-47
- 3 Kosalagood P, Silkosessak OC, Pittayapat P, Pisarnturakit P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Linear measurement accuracy of eight cone beam computed tomography scanners. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 (06) 1217-1227
- 4 Alamri HM, Sadrameli M, Alshalhoob MA, Sadrameli M, Alshehri MA. Applications of CBCT in dental practice: a review of the literature. Gen Dent 2012; 60 (05) 390-400 , quiz 401–402
- 5 Al-Ekrish AA. Effect of exposure time on the accuracy and reliability of cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions in dry skulls. Saudi Dent J 2012; 24 (3-4): 127-134
- 6 Venkatesh E, Elluru SV. Cone beam computed tomography: basics and applications in dentistry. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2017; 51 (3, suppl 1): S102-S121
- 7 Azhari AA. The Amount of Measurement Inaccuracy Presented by the Cone Beam Computed Tomography during Dental Implant Planning. St. Louis, Missouri, United States: Saint Louis University; 2019
- 8 Almeida VSM, Bomfim RT, Sobreira ACR. et al. Linear measurement accuracy of CBCT panoramic reconstructions: experimental study with dry human mandibles. Oral Radiol 2021; 37 (03) 421-426
- 9 Sancho-Puchades M, Hämmerle CH, Benic GI. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconium dioxide implants in cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (10) 1222-1228
- 10 Mangione F, Meleo D, Talocco M, Pecci R, Pacifici L, Bedini R. Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements between cone beam computed tomography and 3D microtomography. Ann Ist Super Sanita 2013; 49 (03) 261-265
- 11 Kim G, Jung H-J, Lee H-J, Lee J-S, Koo S, Chang S-H. Accuracy and reliability of length measurements on three-dimensional computed tomography using open-source OsiriX software. J Digit Imaging 2012; 25 (04) 486-491
- 12 Razavi T, Palmer RM, Davies J, Wilson R, Palmer PJ. Accuracy of measuring the cortical bone thickness adjacent to dental implants using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21 (07) 718-725
- 13 Deswal H, Kapoor A, Sehgal K, Grover V. Use of additive manufacturing in surgical tools/guides for dental implants. In: Additive Manufacturing with Medical Applications. Boca Raton, Florida, United States: CRC Press; 2022: 41-71
- 14 Laederach V, Mukaddam K, Payer M, Filippi A, Kühl S. Deviations of different systems for guided implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (09) 1147-1151
- 15 Edelmann AR, Hosseini B, Byrd WC. et al. Exploring effectiveness of computer-aided planning in implant positioning for a single immediate implant placement. J Oral Implantol 2016; 42 (03) 233-239
- 16 Schnutenhaus S, Gröller S, Luthardt RG, Rudolph H. Accuracy of the match between cone beam computed tomography and model scan data in template-guided implant planning: a prospective controlled clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20 (04) 541-549
- 17 Feijo CV, Lucena JG, Kurita LM, Pereira SL. Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography in the detection of horizontal periodontal bone defects: an in vivo study. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2012; 32 (05) e162-e168
- 18 Wanderley VA, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Leite AF. et al. Impact of the blooming artefact on dental implant dimensions in 13 cone-beam computed tomography devices. Int J Implant Dent 2021; 7 (01) 67
- 19 Stimmelmayr M, Denk K, Erdelt K. et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of four cone beam computed tomography devices using 3D implant-planning software. Int J Comput Dent 2017; 20 (01) 21-34
- 20 Bohner LOL, Tortamano P, Marotti J. Accuracy of linear measurements around dental implants by means of cone beam computed tomography with different exposure parameters. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46 (05) 20160377
- 21 Waltrick KB, Nunes de Abreu Junior MJ, Corrêa M, Zastrow MD, Dutra VD. Accuracy of linear measurements and visibility of the mandibular canal of cone-beam computed tomography images with different voxel sizes: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2013; 84 (01) 68-77
- 22 Kehrwald R, Castro HS, Salmeron S, Matheus RA, Santaella GM, Queiroz PM. Influence of voxel size on CBCT images for dental implants planning. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (02) 381-385
- 23 Gurjar BS, Sharma V, Paliwal J, Kalla R, Meena KK, Tahir M. The role of implants and implant prostheses on the accuracy and artifacts of cone-beam computed tomography: an in-vitro study. Scientific Reports 2024; 14 (01) 704