Dental implant imaging: What do South African dentists and dental specialists prefer?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2021/v76no7a1Keywords:
Dental implant, radiographic prescription, survey, CBCT.Abstract
To document the types of imaging modalities that are commonly prescribed during dental implant therapy in South Africa. The radiographic preferences were obtained from practitioners via an electronic survey that was disseminated during local dental conferences, electronic channels (e.g., email lists) of multiple dental schools and local dental scientific societies, and personal interviews. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions which were designed to investigate the most common radiographic prescriptions during various treatment phases of implant therapy. The responses of one hundred and forty-two participants (General practitioners and dental specialists) practising in different South African provinces were collected and assessed.
Principally, panoramic radiographs combined with cone beam computed tomography (PAN + CBCT) followed by CBCT, as a single examination (ASE), were the most preferable modalities during the implant planning phase (39% and 29%, respectively). During and directly after the surgery, periapical radiographs (ASE) were the most preferred (87% and 65%, respectively). The most widely preferred radiographic examination during the planning of implants was panoramic radiographs combined with CBCT. Periapical radiographs (ASE) were favoured during, directly after the treatment, and during the follow-up of asymptomatic patients by the majority of participants. However, CBCT (ASE) was preferred in the follow up of symptomatic patients. Factors related to extra anatomical information and superior dimensional accuracy provided by three-dimensional volumes (e.g., CBCT volumes), were the most indicated influencing factors on the radiographic prescriptions during implant planning.
Downloads
References
Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000 May;89(5):630–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2000.106336
Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC, et al. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012 Jun;113(6):817–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005
Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior PAN CBCT only No Radiographs After the first 6 months, 12 months and then every for a 10 year period.Every year for a 10 year period. After the first 6 months, 12 months and then every year for a 3 year period. Every three years for ten years. Other RESEARCH < 455 www.sada.co.za / SADJ Vol. 76 No. 8 mandibular implants: A prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(1):81–5.
Kim YK, Park JY, Kim SG, Kim JS, Kim JD. Magnification rate of digital panoramic radiographs and its effectiveness for pre-operative assessment of dental implants. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2011;40(2):76–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/20544408
Assaf M, Gharbyah A. Accuracy of Computerized Vertical Measurements on Digital Orthopantomographs: Posterior Mandibular Region. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4(2):7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2156-7514.148274
Devlin H, Yuan J. Object position and image magnification in dental panoramic radiography: A theoretical analysis. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2013 Jan;42(1):29951683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/29951683
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. Vol. 73, Periodontology 2000. Blackwell Munksgaard; 2017. p. 51–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12161
Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Nov;23(11):1243–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02441.x
European Commission. Protection radiation No 172: Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology (Evidence-based guidelines) [Internet]. Luxembourg; 2012. Available from: http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf
European Commission. Radiation Protection No 136: European guidelines on radiation protection in dental radiology - The safe use of radiographs in dental practice [Internet]. Luxembourg; 2004. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/136.pdf
Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: The international congress of oral implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent. 2012;21(2):78–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31824885b5
Bornstein M, Scarfe W, Vaughn V, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: A systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jan; 29(Supplement):55–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4
Horner K, O’Malley L, Taylor K, Glenny A-M. Guidelines for clinical use of CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140225
Noffke C, Farman A, Nel S, Nzima N. Guidelines for the safe use of dental and maxillofacial CBCT: a review with recommendations for South Africa. SADJ. 2011;66(6):264–6.
Singh R, Singh S, Nabi AT, Huda I, Singh D. Evaluation of existing radiographic prescription tendencies in planning dental implant therapy: A survey based original study. J Adv Med Dent Sci Res. 2019;7(1):100–3.
Shewale A, Gattani D, Gudadhe B, Meshram S. Radiographic imaging assessment prior to implant placement – Choice of dentists in Nagpur city. Indian J Dent Adv. 2017;9(3):139–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5866/2017.9.10139
Ramakrishnan P, Shafi FM, Subhash A, Kumara AEG, Chakkarayan J, Vengalath J. A survey on radiographic prescription practices in dental implant assessment among dentists in Kerala, India. Oral Health Dent Manag. 2014 Sep;13(3):826–30.
Mall N, Pritam A. Assessment of current radiographic prescription trends in dental implant treatment planning: A survey based original study. Int J Med Heal Res. 2017;3(9):66–9.
Sakakura C, Morais J, Loffredo L, Scaf G. A survey of radiographic prescription in dental implant assessment. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2003 Nov;32(6):397–400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/20681066
Rabi H, Qirresh E, Rabi T. Radiographic prescription trends among Palestinian dentists for dental implant placement – A cross sectional survey. J Dent Probl Solut. 2017;11–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17352/2455-8418.000040
Majid I, Mukith ur Rahaman S, Sowbhagya M, Alikutty F, Kumar H. Radiographic prescription trends in dental implant site. J Dent Implant. 2014;4(2):140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-6781.140874
Alnahwi M, Alqarni A, Alqahtani R, Baher Baker M, Alshahrani FN. A survey on radiographic prescription practices in dental implant assessment. J Appl Dent Med Sci. 2017;3(1):148–56.
Dölekoğlu S, Fişekçioğlu E, İlgüy M, İlgüy D. The usage of digital radiography and cone beam computed tomography among Turkish dentists. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2011;40(6):379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/27837552
Di Murro B, Papi P, Passarelli PC, D’Addona A, Pompa G. Attitude in radiographic post-operative assessment of dental implants among Italian dentists: A cross-sectional survey. Antibiotics. 2020 May 7;9(5):234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9050234
Beshtawi K. Recommendations for the development of a framework for radiological imaging studies during implant therapy in SA [Internet]. University of the Western Cape; 2021. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11394/7744
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
.png){kind=spacer}