Cargando…

Validity of ridge mapping and cone beam computed tomography in dental implant therapy

AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of alveolar ridge measurements obtained with ridge mapping (RM) technique against cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty partially edentulous patients were recruited for implant placement in the Clin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Castro-Ruiz, Carmen Teresa, Noriega, Jorge, Guerrero, Maria Eugenia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4520113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26229269
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.154189
Descripción
Sumario:AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of alveolar ridge measurements obtained with ridge mapping (RM) technique against cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty partially edentulous patients were recruited for implant placement in the Clinic of San Martin de Porres University. For all the measurements, a vacuum-formed stent was fabricated for each subject. A buccal and lingual point was made in the stent to provide a reference of measurement for each implant site. RM measurements with the stent were obtained before and after surgical flap reflection. Two calibrated observers made the CBCT images measurements. T-test was used for the statistical analysis. Values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Also, specificity and sensibility of CBCT and RM were compared. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)_ was measure between CBCT measurements. RESULTS: A total of 62 implants sites were evaluated. No statistical significant differences were obtained with CBCT and RM measurements (P = 0,207). Detecting proper buccal-lingual ridge, the sensitivity and specificity were 59% and 91% for RM while CBCT obtained 92% of sensitivity and 94% of specificity. Concordance was found “good” (ICC 0.82). CONCLUSION: Both methods provide valid measurements. Even though, we found diagnostic limitations in the RM, it demonstrated to be a useful method for its exactitude, low cost, the immediate result and no need of radiation. CBCT was recommended when the bone ridge width and height were in the less than ideal for conventional dental implant placement.