DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ekestubbe, A.
Right arrow Articles by Grondahl, H. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ekestubbe, A.
Right arrow Articles by Grondahl, H. G.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 26, Issue 4 206-213, Copyright © 1997 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

The use of tomography for dental implant planning

A. Ekestubbe, K. Grondahl and H. G. Grondahl
Department of Oral Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Goteborg University, Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the use of tomography for dental implant planning. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to oral radiology clinics in Sweden and to implantology clinics in different parts of the world with questions on selection criteria and techniques for, and frequency of, pre-implant tomography. Differences between mean values were assessed by t-test. A new method developed by the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute was used to assess radiation absorbed dose from CT. RESULTS: Tomography was used by 93.4% of the clinics, but there was marked variation both between and within different clinical situations. It was performed in all cases by 21% and the majority used it for the evaluation of the maxilla, the posterior mandible and in single implant cases. Small clinics (< 100 patients per year) used tomography frequently and clinics in Sweden significantly more often than those in other countries. The majority had changed their policy recently, using tomography more often. CT was used by 73% of respondents, mainly the small clinics. The majority of the large clinics (> 500 patients per year) used conventional tomography. The mean absorbed dose for CT scanning protocols was 65 mGy. The variation within and between different makes of CT was considerable. CONCLUSIONS: There are large variations in frequency of use of both conventional and computed tomography for dental implant planning by different clinics who also vary in the indications for their choice. A substantial factor influencing the technique chosen was its availability rather than clinical need.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
F. Dammann, A. Bode, E. Schwaderer, M. Schaich, M. Heuschmid, and M. M. Maassen
Computer-aided Surgical Planning for Implantation of Hearing Aids Based on CT Data in a VR Environment
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2001; 21(1): 183 - 190.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1997 by the British Institute of Radiology.