Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2020; 24(05): 499-509
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701496
Review Article

Cone Beam Computed Tomography Imaging in Dental Implants: A Primer for Clinical Radiologists

Anja Bernaerts
1   Department of Radiology, GZA Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium
,
Lieven Barbier
2   Training Center for Dental Students of the KU Leuven, AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende AV, Bruges, Belgium
,
Johan Abeloos
3   Department of Maxillo-Facial Surgery, AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende AV, Bruges, Belgium
,
Tom De Backer
3   Department of Maxillo-Facial Surgery, AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende AV, Bruges, Belgium
,
Frederik Bosmans
4   Department of Radiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
5   Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium
,
Filip M. Vanhoenacker
4   Department of Radiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
6   Department of Radiology, AZ Sint-Maarten, Mechelen, Belgium
7   Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
,
Jan Casselman
1   Department of Radiology, GZA Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium
7   Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
8   Department of Radiology, AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende AV, Bruges, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

With the introduction of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) into dentistry in the 1990s, radiologists have become more frequently involved in dental implant planning. This article describes the information that should be included in a radiology report to achieve a successful implantation. The justification to use CBCT during the preoperative planning phase is based on the need to evaluate patient-specific anatomy in detail (general condition of the jaw, bone quantity, and bone quality), the application of more advanced surgical techniques (maxillary sinus augmentation procedure, zygomatic implants), and the integrated presurgical planning and virtual patient approach. Postoperatively, CBCT is used when implant retrieval is anticipated and two-dimensional radiographs have not provided sufficient information, for evaluation of graft healing, or to assess complications, mostly related to neurovascular trauma.

Keywords

cone beam computed tomography - dental implants - alveolar ridge augmentation - implant failure - imaging


Publication History

Article published online:
09 October 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18 (01) 88
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Abrahams JJ. Dental CT imaging: a look at the jaw. Radiology 2001; 219 (02) 334-345
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Al-Ekrish AA. Radiology of implant dentistry. Radiol Clin North Am 2018; 56 (01) 141-156
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Bornstein MM, Horner K, Jacobs R. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73 (01) 51-72
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Bernaerts A, Vanhoenacker FM, Chapelle K, Hintjens J, Parizel PM. The role of dental CT imaging in dental implantology. JBR-BTR 2006; 89 (01) 32-42
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Yepes JF, Al-Sabbagh M. Use of cone-beam computed tomography in early detection of implant failure. Dent Clin North Am 2015; 59 (01) 41-56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Rios HF, Borgnakke WS, Benavides E. The use of cone-beam computed tomography in management of patients requiring dental implants: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol 2017; 88 (10) 946-959
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Quirynen M, Gijbels F, Jacobs R. An infected jawbone site compromising successful osseointegration. Periodontol 2000 2003; 33: 129-144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Tamimi D, Koenig L, Al-Ekrish A. et al. Specialty Imaging: Dental Implants. Altona, Australia: Amirsys Inc.-Elsevier; 2014
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Zijderveld SA, van den Bergh JP, Schulten EA, ten Bruggenkate CM. Anatomical and surgical findings and complications in 100 consecutive maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66 (07) 1426-1438
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Tavelli L, Borgonovo AE, Re D, Maiorana C. Sinus presurgical evaluation: a literature review and a new classification proposal. Minerva Stomatol 2017; 66 (03) 115-131
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Saavedra-Abril JA, Balhen-Martin C, Zaragoza-Velasco K, Kimura-Hayama ET, Saavedra S, Stoopen ME. Dental multisection CT for the placement of oral implants: technique and applications. Radiographics 2010; 30 (07) 1975-1991
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988; 17 (04) 232-236
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Zhang W, Skrypczak A, Weltman R. Anterior maxilla alveolar ridge dimension and morphology measurement by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for immediate implant treatment planning. BMC Oral Health 2015; 15: 65
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Eitner S, Zöller JE, Kreppel M. Lingual concavities in the mandible: a morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43 (02) 254-259
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37 (01) 10-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44 (01) 20140238
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. , eds. Tissue Integrated Prosthesis; Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago, IL: Quintessence; 1985: 199-209
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Triches DF, Alonso FR, Mezzomo LA. et al. Relation between insertion torque and tactile, visual, and rescaled gray value measures of bone quality: a cross-sectional clinical study with short implants. Int J Implant Dent 2019; 5 (01) 9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Scherer MD. Presurgical implant-site assessment and restoratively driven digital planning. Dent Clin North Am 2014; 58 (03) 561-595
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Corpas LdosS, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, Huang Y, Naert I, Duyck J. Peri-implant bone tissue assessment by comparing the outcome of intra-oral radiograph and cone beam computed tomography analyses to the histological standard. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22 (05) 492-499
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Silveira-Neto N, Flores ME, De Carli JP. et al. Peri-implant assessment via cone beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography: an ex vivo study. Clinics (São Paulo) 2017; 72 (11) 708-713
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Vanderstuyft T, Tarce M, Sanaan B, Jacobs R, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Quirynen M. Inaccuracy of buccal bone thickness estimation on cone-beam CT due to implant blooming: an ex-vivo study. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46 (11) 1134-1143
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Pelekos G, Acharya A, Tonetti MS, Bornstein MM. Diagnostic performance of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri-implant bone loss: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (05) 443-464
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Monje A, Pons R, Insua A, Nart J, Wang HL, Schwarz F. Morphology and severity of peri-implantitis bone defects. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21 (04) 635-643
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Chadha GK, Ahmadieh A, Kumar S, Sedghizadeh PP. Osseointegration of dental implants and osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients treated with bisphosphonate therapy: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol 2013; 39 (04) 510-520
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Baba A, Goto TK, Ojiri H. et al. CT imaging features of antiresorptive agent-related osteonecrosis of the jaw/medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47 (04) 20170323
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Clark D, Barbu H, Lorean A, Mijiritsky E, Levin L. Incidental findings of implant complications on postimplantation CBCTs: A cross-sectional study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19 (05) 776-782
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar