Assessment of Location of the Mandibular Canal: Correlation Between Panoramic and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Measurements
Assessment of Location of the Mandibular Canal: Correlation Between Panoramic and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Measurements
复制标题
DOI：
10.11607/ijp.5430
复制
发表时间：
2018-03-01
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Emshoff, Ruediger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bertram, Felix;Bertram, Stefan;Emshoff, Ruediger
目的：比较全景和锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）测定颏孔后下颌区的颏至下颌管（MC）尺寸，并调查性别、年龄、区域和垂直尺寸等因素是否影响两种技术之间的相关性。材料与方法：对64名连续成人患者（42名女性，22名男性;平均年龄57.1 ± 13.3岁）进行了回顾性分析，其中126个种植体位于下颌骨后段。通过测量从种植体下缘到MC上级缘的距离，在每张全景和CBCT X线片上评估种植体部位（第一前磨牙、第二前磨牙、第一磨牙和第二磨牙）。使用二元逻辑回归分析计算每个植入部位低估与非低估的比值比（OR）。以CBCT维度为因变量，全景维度、性别、年龄为自变量进行线性回归分析。结果：在全景X线摄影中，种植体到MC的平均尺寸为2.50 +/- 1.31 mm，在CBCT中为2.91 +/- 1.62 mm。第二磨牙区种植体属于低估组的OR很高（15.1：1），具有高度显著性（P = 0.011）。如果要求预测值为0.95，则与预测的CBCT尺寸相比，植入物-MC尺寸必须高估2 mm。结论：本研究提供的证据表明，通过全景X线摄影评估时，下颌骨后部区域种植体的可用垂直骨尺寸被低估。因此，建议使用CBCT估计该区域的所有植入物尺寸。
Purpose: To compare panoramic and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) determinations of impiant-to-mandibular canal (MC) dimensions in mandibular regions posterior to the mental foramen and to investigate whether factors such as gender, age, region, and vertical dimension influence correlation between the two techniques. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was carried out in 64 consecutive adult patients (42 females, 22 males; average age 57.1 +/- 13.3 years) in whom 126 implants were positioned in the posterior segment of the mandible. Implant sites (first premolar, second premolar, first molar, and second molar) were assessed on each panoramic and CBCT radiograph by measuring the distance from the inferior border of the implant to the superior border of the MC. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to compute the odds ratios (ORs) of each implant site for underestimation vs nonunderestimation. Linear regression analysis was performed with CBCT dimension as the dependent variable and panoramic dimension, gender, and age as the independent variables. Results: The mean implant-to-MC dimension was 2.50 +/- 1.31 mm in panoramic radiography and 2.91 +/- 1.62 mm in CBCT. The OR that an implant at the second molar region belonged to the underestimation group was strong (15.1:1) and highly significant (P = .011). If a predictive value of .95 was demanded, the implant-to-MC dimensions had to be overestimated by 2 mm compared to the predicted CBCT dimension. Conclusion: This study provides evidence of an underestimation of available vertical bone dimensions for implants in the posterior regions of the mandible when assessed by panoramic radiography. Use of CBCT is therefore recommended for all implant size estimations in this region.