Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography imaging in placed dental implants: comparison between multiplanar reconstruction and parasagittal images / Avaliação de imagens de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico em implantes instalados: comparação entre reconstrução multiplanar e imagens parassagitais

Mariana Murai Chagas, Maria Alves Garcia Silva, Marcelo Gusmão Paraiso Cavalcanti


This study aimed to compare multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) to parasagittal images of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for localizing placed dental implants concerning adjacent anatomical structures (nasal fossa floor, maxillary sinus, inferior alveolar canal and nasopalatine canal).

The CBCT exams of 164 placed implants were analyzed. All tomographic images were imported to Imaging Studio software to create parasagittal image templates. The images were randomized and analyzed by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists who classified whether or not there was perforation of the anatomical structure in question.

According to Kappa coefficient of agreement, the results including, all anatomical structures for inter-observer assessment was 0.81 and for intra-observer assessment, 0.79 for observer one and 0.89 for observer two. For each anatomical structure, the agreement ranged from 'substantial' to 'almost perfect' (nasal fossa floor 0.72, nasopalatine canal 0.92, maxillary sinus 0.81, and inferior alveolar canal 0.81).  

Based on our findings, there was substantial to almost perfect agreement when comparing MPR and parasagittal images of CBCT regarding of implant position relationship with anatomical structures. Since both modalities did not differ in implant position, and the MPR represents the complete and original volume that enables analysis in three dimensions, they can be the first-choice imaging modality to analyze placed dental implants.


Cone-beam computed tomography, Dental implants, Diagnostic imaging

Full Text:



Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Kekovic V, Goker F, Tumedei M, Wang H-L. A Systematic Review of Survival Rates of Osseointegrated Implants in Fully and Partially Edentulous Patients Following Immediate Loading. J Clin Med. 2019;8(12):2142. doi:10.3390/jcm8122142

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(1):1-16. doi:10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5

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(1):51-72. doi:10.1111/prd.12161

Moura HFS, Dias ES, Aquino LBS, et al. Avanços no diagnóstico por imagem: Alternativa de precisão e acurácia. Brazilian J Dev. 2020;6(6):34805-34821. doi:10.34117/bjdv6n6-138

Camargo IB, Van Sickels JE. Surgical complications after implant placement. Dent Clin North Am. 2015;59(1):57-72. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2014.08.003

Ragucci GM, Elnayef B, Suárez-López del Amo F, Wang H-L, Hernández-Alfaro F, Gargallo-Albiol J. Influence of exposing dental implants into the sinus cavity on survival and complications rate: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2019;5(1). doi:10.1186/s40729-019-0157-7

Kang SR, Bok SC, Choi SC, et al. The relationship between dental implant stability and trabecular bone structure using cone-beam computed tomography. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2016;46(2):116-127. doi:10.5051/jpis.2016.46.2.116

Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. 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;113(6):817-826. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005

Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Romanos G, Tarnow D. Clinical Recommendations for Avoiding and Managing Surgical Complications Associated With Implant Dentistry: A Review. J Periodontol. 2008;79(8):1317-1329. doi:10.1902/jop.2008.070067

Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159. doi:10.2307/2529310

Hartmann A, Welte-Jzyk C, Seiler M, Daubländer M. Neurophysiological changes associated with implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(5):576-581. doi:10.1111/clr.12837

Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, 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;23(11):1243-1253. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02441.x

Tadinada A, Jalali E, Al-Salman W, Jambhekar S, Katechia B, Almas K. Prevalence of bony septa, antral pathology, and dimensions of the maxillary sinus from a sinus augmentation perspective: A retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016;46(2):109-115. doi:10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.109

Chen YW, Lee FY, Chang PH, et al. A paradigm for evaluation and management of the maxillary sinus before dental implantation. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(6):1261-1267. doi:10.1002/lary.26856

Bahşi İ, Orhan M, Kervancioğlu P, Yalçin ED, Aktan AM. Anatomical evaluation of nasopalatine canal on cone beam computed tomography images. 2019;78(1):153-162. doi:10.5603/FM.a2018.0062

Yilmaz Z, Ucer C, Scher E, Suzuki J RT. The Incidence and Cause of Iatrogenic Trigeminal Nerve Injuries Related to Dental Implant Surgery. Implant Dent. 2016;Oct;25(5): doi:10.1097/ID.0000000000000472

Nolan PJ, Freeman K, Kraut RA. Correlation between schneiderian membrane perforation and sinus lift graft outcome: A retrospective evaluation of 359 augmented sinus. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(1):47-52. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2013.07.020

Costa ED, Peyneau PD, Ambrosano GMB, Oliveira ML. Influence of cone beam CT volume orientation on alveolar bone measurements in patients with different facial profiles. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2019;48(6). doi:10.1259/dmfr.20180330

Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29 Suppl 1:393-415. doi:10.1111/clr.13142

Kiljunen T, Kaasalainen T, Suomalainen A, Kortesniemi M. Dental cone beam CT: A review. Phys Medica. 2015;31(8):844-860. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.004

Vasconcelos T, Nascimento E, Bechara B, Freitas D, Noujeim M. Influence of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Settings on Implant Artifact Production: Zirconia and Titanium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(5):1114-1120. doi:10.11607/jomi.7129

Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: State of the art. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2015;44(1):1-20. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20140224

Vasconcelos TV entorin., Neves FS ampai., Moraes LAB uen., Freitas DQ ueiro. Vertical bone measurements from cone beam computed tomography images using different software packages. Braz Oral Res. 2015;29(1):1-6. doi:10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0035

Ribeiro MI, Santos TKGL dos, Melo TS, Brito LNS, Ribeiro MI. Terapia Fotodinâmica Na Peri-Implantite: Uma Revisão De Literatura. Brazilian J Dev. 2020;6(8):57912-57926. doi:10.34117/bjdv6n8-267

Pinheiro LR, Gaia BF, Oliveira De Sales MA, Umetsubo OS, Santos Junior O, Paraíso Cavalcanti MG. Effect of field of view in the detection of chemically created peri-implant bone defects in bovine ribs using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015;120(1):69-77. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2015.04.006

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. doi:10.1902/jop.2017.160548

Carter L, Farman AG, Geist J, et al. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology executive opinion statement on performing and interpreting diagnostic cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2008;106(4):561-562. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.07.007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv7n4-101


  • There are currently no refbacks.