Premium
Are panoramic images reliable in planning sinus augmentation procedures?
Author(s) -
Temmerman Andy,
Hertelé Stijn,
Teughels Wim,
Dekeyser Christel,
Jacobs Reinhilde,
Quirynen Marc
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02000.x
Subject(s) - premolar , radiography , medicine , cone beam computed tomography , maxillary sinus , molar , sinus (botany) , orthodontics , dentistry , anatomy , computed tomography , radiology , botany , biology , genus
Objective: The inherent deformation and two‐dimensional nature of panoramic radiographs jeopardise their interpretation and quantitative measurements. This study aims to estimate the degree of underestimation of available mesio‐distal bone in the premolar area (comparing panoramic radiographs with multi‐slice/cone‐beam computer tomography [CT]) to determine the prevalence, width, length and position of the bony canal [artery] in the lateral sinus wall and to explore the prevalence, width and length of another (newly detected) bony canal at the palatal aspect of the upper canine. Material and methods: The distance between the distal side of the canine/first premolar and the mesial side of the first molar or the anterior wall of the maxillary sinus was measured on panoramic radiographs and corresponding multi‐slice/cone‐beam CT images (65 patients). Measurements were made at apical, mid‐radicular and crestal regions, parallel to the occlusal plane. The presence and dimensions of the two above‐mentioned intra‐osseous canals were verified on multi‐slice CT scans (144 patients) using reformatted cross‐sectional images and/or axial slices. Results: For all 65 patients, panoramic radiographs underscored the mesio‐distal distance of available bone in the upper premolar region (mean 2.9 mm, range 0.1–7.5 mm). An intra‐osseous canal in the lateral maxillary sinus wall was clearly visible in 49.5% of the cases (mean diameter 1.4 mm). In the canine region, a bony canal was obvious in 32.9% of the cases, with a mean diameter of 1.23 mm. For both canals, there was no correlation between diameter and patient's age. Conclusions: Based on the present data, cone‐beam CT imaging can be recommended for visualising anatomical structures during planning of sinus augmentation procedures. To cite this article:
Temmerman A, Hertelé S, Teughels W, Dekeyser C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Are panoramic images reliable in planning sinus augmentation procedures?
Clin. Oral Impl. Res . 22 , 2011; 189 –194.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02000.x