Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 27:2022:1553340.
doi: 10.1155/2022/1553340. eCollection 2022.

Comparison of the Efficacy of the Panoramic and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Imaging Methods in the Surgical Planning of the Maxillary All-On-4, M-4, and V-4

Erim Tandogdu  1 , Aysa Ayali  2 , Mehmet Gagari Caymaz  3
Affiliations

Comparison of the Efficacy of the Panoramic and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Imaging Methods in the Surgical Planning of the Maxillary All-On-4, M-4, and V-4

Erim Tandogdu et al. Biomed Res Int. .

Abstract

This study is aimed at analyzing the difference between the measurements made according to certain anatomical signs of the maxillary jaw using panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to decide whether to use all-on-4, M-4, or V-4 configuration to prevent complications caused by incorrect measurements during the presurgical planning stage of the placement of implants in the all-on-4 technique. A retrospective study was conducted with 50 patients with upper edentulous jaws suitable for the all-on-4 technique, who underwent preoperative panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography evaluation for dental implant surgery. The shortest vertical distances between anatomical structures were measured. Measurements were made independently by two oral and maxillofacial surgeons, one experienced and the other inexperienced. A statistically significant difference was found between the mean values according to gender (p=0.045). When the measurements made by the experienced surgeon and the inexperienced surgeon were compared, there was no significant difference between panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography. In situations where bone measurements are required for deciding on all-on-4 or one of its configurations (M-4 and V-4), it was found that panoramic radiography gives significantly incorrect results compared to cone beam computed tomography (p<0.05). Cone beam computed tomography is more reliable than panoramic radiography and eliminates the margin of error in the planning of all-on-4 or its variations to be made by either an experienced or an inexperienced oral surgeon.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Measurement of the shortest vertical distance between the right and left nasal floors on a panoramic image (a) and a cone beam computed tomography image (b).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Measurement of the shortest vertical distance between the left lateral nasal wall and left maxillary sinus on a panoramic image (a) and a cone beam computed tomography image (b).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Measurement of the shortest vertical distance between the bottom of the nasal floor and the alveolar crest on a panoramic image (a) and a cone beam computed tomography image (b).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Measurement of the shortest vertical distance between the maxillary lateral incisor tooth region and the maxillary first molar tooth region on a panoramic image (a) and a cone beam computed tomography image (b).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Measurement of the shortest vertical distance between the right and left maxillary lateral incisor tooth region on a panoramic image (a) and a cone beam computed tomography image (b).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sorni M., Guarinos J., García O., Peñarrocha M. Implant rehabilitation of the atrophic upper jaw: a review of the literature since 1999. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal . 2005;10:E45–E56. - PubMed
    1. Ali S. A., Karthigeyan S., Deivanai M., Kumar A. Implant rehabilitation for atrophic maxilla: a review. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society . 2014;14(3):196–207. doi: 10.1007/s13191-014-0360-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jensen O. T., Adams M. W. The maxillary M-4: a technical and biomechanical note for all-on-4 management of severe maxillary atrophy—report of 3 cases. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery . 2009;67(8):1739–1744. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.067. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jensen O. T., Adams M. W., Cottam J. R., Parel S. M., Phillips W. R., III The all-on-4 shelf: maxilla. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery . 2010;68(10):2520–2527. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.082. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tyndall D. A., Price J. B., Tetradis S., Ganz S. D., Hildebolt C., Scarfe W. C. 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 Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology . 2012;113(6):817–826. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources