Volume 28, Issue 1, Page 37

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
A Journal of Head and Neck Imaging

January 1999, Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 37 – 41

	Journal Home
<- Previous	Issue Contents	Next ->

Original Article

Predictability of reformatted computed tomography for pre-operative planning of endosseous implants
R Jacobs^1,4, A Adriansens¹, I Naert², M Quirynen¹, R Hermans³ & D Van Steenberghe¹
¹Department Periodontology, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium ²Department Prosthetic Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium ³Department Radiology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium

⁴Author for correspondence: Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnevoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium

Keywords

tomography, X-ray computed; dental implant, endosseous; jaw

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the reliability of reformatted 2D-CT for pre-operative planning of implant placement.
Methods: One hundred consecutive partially or fully edentate patients underwent 2-D reformatted CT pre-operative planning and subsequent implant placement. The number, site and size of the implants, the available bone height and anatomical complications were recorded. The pre-operative planning and the outcome at surgery were compared statistically using a percentage agreement and Kendall’s correlation coefficient.
Results: Agreement between the pre- and intra-operative data was good for the number of implants (60%) and the selected sites (70%). From a total of 416 implants planned, 21 implants could not be placed because of intra-operative findings. Agreement was relatively poor for implant size (44%) and anatomical complications (46%). Kendall’s correlation coefficient was highest for the number of implants (0.80) and implant sites (0.81). It was much lower for implant sizes (0.51) and did not reach significance for anatomical complications (0.09).
Conclusions: Reformatted 2D-CT is reliable for the pre-operative assessment of the number and sites of implants in the jaws. It is less predictable for the implant size needed and poor for anatomical complications.

Received 27 February 1998; Accepted 15 September 1998