The Precision of All-on-Four Implant Position Recorded from Three Different CBCT Machines.

Q1 Dentistry
Osamah Alsulimani, Abdulrahman Alhaddad, Mosa Altassan, Asmaa Bukhari, Lulu Munshi, Ghalia Sabir
{"title":"The Precision of All-on-Four Implant Position Recorded from Three Different CBCT Machines.","authors":"Osamah Alsulimani, Abdulrahman Alhaddad, Mosa Altassan, Asmaa Bukhari, Lulu Munshi, Ghalia Sabir","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1788613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> To investigate the dimensional discrepancy and degree of deviation of All-on-Four implant position between different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) machines.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong> Four implants (4.5 × 10 mm Superline II, Dentium, South Korea) were placed in an All-on-Four style in an artificial mandible. The jaw was radiated 30 times using three different CBCT machines (Rainbow CT, Dentium; Veraview X800, Morita, Japan; Planmeca Viso G3, Planmeca OY, Finland). A total of 30 Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files were exported, <i>n</i> = 10. All-on-Four implants from each DICOM file were segmented and exported as an STL file (three-dimensional image) using Blue Sky Plan software (version 4.12.13/Blue Sky Bio, United States). All-on-Four implant zone dimensions (<i>X</i>, <i>Y</i>, and <i>Z</i> axes) and the total degree of deviation between All-on-Four implants per CBCT machine were measured using Autodesk Meshmixer software (version 3.5.474/California, United States). The data distribution's normality and variances' equality were tested with Shapiro-Wilk's and Levene's tests, respectively (<i>p</i>-value < 0.05). Data were analyzed using Brown-Forsythe one-way analysis of variance and Tamhane's post hoc tests to compare the differences between the groups (<i>p</i>-value <0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> The respective <i>X</i>, <i>Y</i>, and <i>Z</i> mean dimensions of the All-on-Four implant zone were: Dentium (34.95, 14.71, and 9.97); Morita (34.88, 14.74, and 10.56); and Planmeca (34.73, 15.15, and 12.33). Significant differences between CBCT machines were found in all axes (<i>p</i>-value < 0.05); however, the <i>Z</i>-axis had the most differences. Notably, Planmeca exhibited the highest standard deviation (SD) in all axes (0.16-0.35), exhibiting the lowest consistency in the CBCT machines' readings. The Dentium exhibited the lowest deviation in the implant position, with the lowest SD (0.61). A significant difference in the total degree of deviation was spotted when only Morita was included in the comparison (<i>p</i>-value < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> This study's findings are of significant importance as they reveal that the implant position recorded from the CBCT machines was most discrepant in the buccolingual dimension (<i>Z</i>-axis). Planmeca exhibited the least implant-dimensional accuracy of the CBCT machines, while Dentium exhibited the highest implant position accuracy. These results could significantly impact the choice of CBCT machine for implant placement, especially since an accurate CBCT image is crucial for digital implant planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":12028,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1788613","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective:  To investigate the dimensional discrepancy and degree of deviation of All-on-Four implant position between different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) machines.

Materials and methods:  Four implants (4.5 × 10 mm Superline II, Dentium, South Korea) were placed in an All-on-Four style in an artificial mandible. The jaw was radiated 30 times using three different CBCT machines (Rainbow CT, Dentium; Veraview X800, Morita, Japan; Planmeca Viso G3, Planmeca OY, Finland). A total of 30 Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files were exported, n = 10. All-on-Four implants from each DICOM file were segmented and exported as an STL file (three-dimensional image) using Blue Sky Plan software (version 4.12.13/Blue Sky Bio, United States). All-on-Four implant zone dimensions (X, Y, and Z axes) and the total degree of deviation between All-on-Four implants per CBCT machine were measured using Autodesk Meshmixer software (version 3.5.474/California, United States). The data distribution's normality and variances' equality were tested with Shapiro-Wilk's and Levene's tests, respectively (p-value < 0.05). Data were analyzed using Brown-Forsythe one-way analysis of variance and Tamhane's post hoc tests to compare the differences between the groups (p-value <0.05).

Results:  The respective X, Y, and Z mean dimensions of the All-on-Four implant zone were: Dentium (34.95, 14.71, and 9.97); Morita (34.88, 14.74, and 10.56); and Planmeca (34.73, 15.15, and 12.33). Significant differences between CBCT machines were found in all axes (p-value < 0.05); however, the Z-axis had the most differences. Notably, Planmeca exhibited the highest standard deviation (SD) in all axes (0.16-0.35), exhibiting the lowest consistency in the CBCT machines' readings. The Dentium exhibited the lowest deviation in the implant position, with the lowest SD (0.61). A significant difference in the total degree of deviation was spotted when only Morita was included in the comparison (p-value < 0.05).

Conclusion:  This study's findings are of significant importance as they reveal that the implant position recorded from the CBCT machines was most discrepant in the buccolingual dimension (Z-axis). Planmeca exhibited the least implant-dimensional accuracy of the CBCT machines, while Dentium exhibited the highest implant position accuracy. These results could significantly impact the choice of CBCT machine for implant placement, especially since an accurate CBCT image is crucial for digital implant planning.

三种不同 CBCT 设备记录的全对四种植体位置精度
目的研究不同锥束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)机之间 All-on-Four 种植体位置的尺寸差异和偏差程度:将四颗种植体(4.5 × 10 mm Superline II,韩国 Dentium 公司)以 All-on-Four 方式植入人工下颌骨。使用三种不同的 CBCT 机(Rainbow CT,Dentium;Veraview X800,Morita,日本;Planmeca Viso G3,Planmeca OY,芬兰)对下颌进行了 30 次放射治疗。共导出了 30 个医学数字成像和通信 (DICOM) 文件,n = 10。使用 Blue Sky Plan 软件(4.12.13 版/Blue Sky Bio,美国)将每个 DICOM 文件中的 All-on-Four 种植体分割并导出为 STL 文件(三维图像)。使用 Autodesk Meshmixer 软件(版本 3.5.474/美国加利福尼亚州)测量了每台 CBCT 机的 All-on-Four 种植区尺寸(X、Y 和 Z 轴)和 All-on-Four 种植体之间的总偏差度。数据分布的正态性和方差齐性分别用 Shapiro-Wilk 检验和 Levene 检验(p-value p-value 结果):All-on-Four 种植区的 X、Y 和 Z 平均尺寸分别为Dentium(34.95、14.71 和 9.97);Morita(34.88、14.74 和 10.56);Planmeca(34.73、15.15 和 12.33)。CBCT 机床之间在所有轴上都存在显著差异(p 值 Z 轴的差异最大。值得注意的是,Planmeca 在所有轴的标准偏差(SD)都最高(0.16-0.35),表现出 CBCT 设备读数的最低一致性。Dentium 在种植体位置上的偏差最小,SD 最低(0.61)。如果只比较森田(Morita),则发现总偏差度存在明显差异(P 值 结论):这项研究的发现具有重要意义,因为它揭示了 CBCT 设备记录的种植体位置在颊舌侧维度(Z 轴)的偏差最大。在 CBCT 设备中,Planmeca 的种植体尺寸精度最低,而 Dentium 的种植体位置精度最高。这些结果可能会对选择 CBCT 设备进行种植体植入产生重大影响,尤其是因为精确的 CBCT 图像对数字化种植规划至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Dentistry
European Journal of Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
161
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Dentistry is the official journal of the Dental Investigations Society, based in Turkey. It is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, Open Access, multi-disciplinary international journal addressing various aspects of dentistry. The journal''s board consists of eminent investigators in dentistry from across the globe and presents an ideal international composition. The journal encourages its authors to submit original investigations, reviews, and reports addressing various divisions of dentistry including oral pathology, prosthodontics, endodontics, orthodontics etc. It is available both online and in print.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信