DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pena, N
Right arrow Articles by Bóscolo, F N
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pena, N
Right arrow Articles by Bóscolo, F N
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2008) 37, 453-457
© 2008 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/16676031

RESEARCH

Determination of the length of zygomatic implants through computed tomography: establishing a protocol

N Pena*,1, P S F Campos2, S M de Almeida3 and F N Bóscolo3

1FAPESB (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia, Research Support Foundation of the State of Bahia), Bahia, Brazil; 2Oral Radiology Post-Graduation Program, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil; 3Department of Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

*Correspondence to: Nilson Pena, R. dos pintassilgos n. 102/803, Imbui, Salvador, Bahia, CEP 41.720-030, Brazil; E-mail: nilsonpena{at}radiologia.odo.br

Received 10 September 2007; revised 4 January 2008; accepted 7 January 2008

Objectives: The aim of this study was to establish and verify an examination protocol using CT to estimate the length of zygomatic implants, thus rendering the surgical process safer and more predictable, and exposing the patient to a minimal level of radiation.

Methods: Paracoronal CT scan was carried out on ten dry human crania (n = 20) and the zygomatic implant sites were measured (LCT) bilaterally. A standard surgical zygomatic implant placement procedure was carried out and the actual lengths (LReal) and clinical lengths (LClin) determined.

Results: The averages of the LCT, LClin and LReal were 45.73±4.82 mm, 42.63±4.33 mm, and 44.73±4.53 mm, respectively. Student's t-test revealed no statistically significant differences between the LReal and LCT averages (P = 0.1532), whereas the LReal and LClin averages were statistically different (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: The proposed protocol proved to be precise and efficacious in the determination of zygomatic implant length, with the advantage to the patient of a relatively low level of exposure to radiation due to the small quantity of tomographic slices used. Although there were no major repercussions, the clinical probe in the zygomatic implant kit commonly used in this surgical procedure proved to be a rather imprecise tool.

Keywords: zygoma; dental implantation; tomography, X-ray computed






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2008 by the British Institute of Radiology.