Next Article in Journal
Prediction Models for Successful Sperm Retrieval in Patients with Non-Obstructive Azoospermia Undergoing Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction: Is There Any Room for Further Studies?
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Different Lymphatic Drainage Patterns during Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Skin Melanoma
 
 
Article

Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

1
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
2
Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
3
Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Both authors contributed equally.
Academic Editors: Nikolaos Gkantidis, Carlalberta Verna and Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(23), 5546; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235546
Received: 16 October 2021 / Revised: 22 November 2021 / Accepted: 24 November 2021 / Published: 26 November 2021
This study aimed to investigate the geometric reproducibility of three-dimensional (3D) implant planning based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Four raters used a backward-planning approach based on CBCT imaging and standard software to position 41 implants in 27 patients. Implant planning was repeated, and the first and second plans were analyzed for geometric differences regarding implant tip, entry-level, and axis. The procedure was then repeated for MRI data of the same patients. Thus, 656 implant plans were available for analysis of intra-rater reproducibility. For both imaging modalities, the second-round 3D implant plans were re-evaluated regarding inter-rater reproducibility. Differences between the modalities were analyzed using paired t-tests. Intra- and inter-rater reproducibility were higher for CBCT than for MRI. Regarding intra-rater deviations, mean values for MRI were 1.7 ± 1.1 mm/1.5 ± 1.1 mm/5.5 ± 4.2° at implant tip/entry-level/axis. For CBCT, corresponding values were 1.3 ± 0.8 mm/1 ± 0.6 mm/4.5 ± 3.1°. Inter-rater comparisons revealed mean values of 2.2 ± 1.3 mm/1.7 ± 1 mm/7.5 ± 4.9° for MRI, and 1.7 ± 1 mm/1.2 ± 0.7 mm/6 ± 3.7° for CBCT. CBCT-based implant planning was more reproducible than MRI. Nevertheless, more research is needed to increase planning reproducibility—for both modalities—thereby standardizing 3D implant planning. View Full-Text
Keywords: dimensional measurement accuracy; cone beam computed tomography; magnetic resonance imaging; imaging; dental implants; permanent dental restoration dimensional measurement accuracy; cone beam computed tomography; magnetic resonance imaging; imaging; dental implants; permanent dental restoration
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Schwindling, F.S.; Boehm, S.; Herpel, C.; Kronsteiner, D.; Vogel, L.; Juerchott, A.; Heiland, S.; Bendszus, M.; Rammelsberg, P.; Hilgenfeld, T. Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5546. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235546

AMA Style

Schwindling FS, Boehm S, Herpel C, Kronsteiner D, Vogel L, Juerchott A, Heiland S, Bendszus M, Rammelsberg P, Hilgenfeld T. Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(23):5546. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235546

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schwindling, Franz Sebastian, Sophia Boehm, Christopher Herpel, Dorothea Kronsteiner, Lorenz Vogel, Alexander Juerchott, Sabine Heiland, Martin Bendszus, Peter Rammelsberg, and Tim Hilgenfeld. 2021. "Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 23: 5546. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235546

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop