Cargando…
Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
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 implan...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8658654/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34884244 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235546 |
_version_ | 1784612781180321792 |
---|---|
author | Schwindling, Franz Sebastian Boehm, Sophia Herpel, Christopher Kronsteiner, Dorothea Vogel, Lorenz Juerchott, Alexander Heiland, Sabine Bendszus, Martin Rammelsberg, Peter Hilgenfeld, Tim |
author_facet | Schwindling, Franz Sebastian Boehm, Sophia Herpel, Christopher Kronsteiner, Dorothea Vogel, Lorenz Juerchott, Alexander Heiland, Sabine Bendszus, Martin Rammelsberg, Peter Hilgenfeld, Tim |
author_sort | Schwindling, Franz Sebastian |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8658654 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86586542021-12-10 Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Schwindling, Franz Sebastian Boehm, Sophia Herpel, Christopher Kronsteiner, Dorothea Vogel, Lorenz Juerchott, Alexander Heiland, Sabine Bendszus, Martin Rammelsberg, Peter Hilgenfeld, Tim J Clin Med Article 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. MDPI 2021-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8658654/ /pubmed/34884244 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235546 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Schwindling, Franz Sebastian Boehm, Sophia Herpel, Christopher Kronsteiner, Dorothea Vogel, Lorenz Juerchott, Alexander Heiland, Sabine Bendszus, Martin Rammelsberg, Peter Hilgenfeld, Tim Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography |
title | Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography |
title_full | Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography |
title_fullStr | Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography |
title_full_unstemmed | Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography |
title_short | Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography |
title_sort | geometric reproducibility of three-dimensional oral implant planning based on magnetic resonance imaging and cone-beam computed tomography |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8658654/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34884244 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10235546 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schwindlingfranzsebastian geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography AT boehmsophia geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography AT herpelchristopher geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography AT kronsteinerdorothea geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography AT vogellorenz geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography AT juerchottalexander geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography AT heilandsabine geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography AT bendszusmartin geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography AT rammelsbergpeter geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography AT hilgenfeldtim geometricreproducibilityofthreedimensionaloralimplantplanningbasedonmagneticresonanceimagingandconebeamcomputedtomography |