We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 3     15. May 2010
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 3  (15.05.2010)

Page 499-505, PubMed:20556248

Multichannel Computed Tomography Versus Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: Linear Accuracy of In Vitro Measurements of the Maxilla for Implant Placement
Fatemitabar, Seyed Ahmad / Nikgoo, Arash
Purpose: Accurate measurement of alveolar bone and adjacent anatomic structures is of paramount importance in implant insertion. This study was conducted to compare the linear measurement accuracy of 64-channel computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven sites were marked on three dry human skulls, with the positions of the buccal and palatal fiducial markers ensuring the representation of one plane by each buccal-palatal pair. The skulls were imaged using Somatom Sensation 64-channel CT (Siemens) and Pro Max 3D CBCT (Planmeca). The two fiducial markers and alveolar bone height were measured on the printed films of the cross-sectional views representing the best buccal and palatal markers. The maxillae were then sawed in marked locations, and direct measurements of the fiducial markers and alveolar bone height were then made. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was employed for statistical analysis.
Results: The measurement errors for the buccal fiducial markers, palatal fiducial markers, and crest height for CBCT were 0.38 ± 0.39 mm, 0.37 ± 0.33 mm, and 0.58 ± 0.45mm, respectively; for the 64-channel CT they were 0.59 ± 0.61 mm, 0.37 ± 0.42 mm, and 0.72 ± 0.92 mm, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in measurement error between the two methods (P > .05).
Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in terms of linear measurement accuracy between the two systems; it could, therefore, be concluded that CBCT is a useful tool for a preliminary assessment of anticipated implant sites.

Keywords: computed tomography, cone-beam computed tomography, dental implant, linear measurement