EdenteV2, PascalFrancis, Corpus, bibRecord, 000226

Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal

Identifieur interne : 000226 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 000225; suivant : 000227

Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal

Auteurs : Niek L. Gerlach ; Gert J. Meijer ; Thomas J. J. Maal ; Jan Mulder ; Frits A. Rangel ; Wilfred A. Borstlap ; Stefaan J. Berge

Source :

Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery [ 0278-2391 ] ; 2010.

RBID : Pascal:10-0183418

Descripteurs français

Pascal (Inist)
- Tomodensitométrie, Chirurgie, Reproductibilité, Traçage, Méthode, Anatomie, Position, Mandibule, Stomatologie, Traitement.

English descriptors

KwdEn :
- Anatomy, Computerized axial tomography, Mandible, Method, Position, Reproducibility, Stomatology, Surgery, Tracing, Treatment.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods to determine a reliable method to define the proper anatomical position of the mandibular canal based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Materials and Methods: Five dentate and 5 edentate patients were selected at random from the CBCT database. Two independent observers traced both the left and the right mandibular canal using 3-dimensional image-based planning software (Procera System NobelGuide; Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden). All mandibular canals were traced using 3 different methods. Method I was based on coronal views, also known as cross-sections. Panorama-like reconstructions were the starting point for method II. The third method combined methods I and II. Results: With respect to interobserver reliability, no significant difference (P = .34) for the various methods was observed. The reproducibility was better in edentate than in dentate jaws (P = .0015). The difference between 2 tracings was the lowest for the combined method: within a range of 1.3 mm in 95% of the course of the canal. The most obvious deviations were mainly seen in the anterior part of the canal. Conclusions: The best reproducible method for mandibular canal tracing is the combined method III. Between observers, still a mean 95th percentile deviation threshold of 1.3 mm (SD 0.384) is noted, indicating that a safety zone of 1.7 mm should be respected. When planning surgery on CBCT-based data, surgeons should be aware of the obvious deviations located in the region of the anterior loop of the canal.

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.

A01	`01`	`1`		`@0 0278-2391`
A02	`01`			`@0 JOMSDA`
A03		`1`		`@0 J. oral maxillofac. surg.`
A05				`@2 68`
A06				`@2 4`
A08	`01`	`1`	`ENG`	`@1 Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal`
A11	`01`	`1`		`@1 GERLACH (Niek L.)`
A11	`02`	`1`		`@1 MEIJER (Gert J.)`
A11	`03`	`1`		`@1 MAAL (Thomas J. J.)`
A11	`04`	`1`		`@1 MULDER (Jan)`
A11	`05`	`1`		`@1 RANGEL (Frits A.)`
A11	`06`	`1`		`@1 BORSTLAP (Wilfred A.)`
A11	`07`	`1`		`@1 BERGE (Stefaan J.)`
A14	`01`			`@1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre @2 Nijmegen @3 NLD @Z 1 aut.`
A14	`02`			`@1 3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges @3 NLD @Z 1 aut. @Z 5 aut. @Z 6 aut.`
A14	`03`			`@1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre @2 Nijmegen @3 NLD @Z 2 aut.`
A14	`04`			`@1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre @2 Nijmegen @3 NLD @Z 3 aut.`
A14	`05`			`@1 Department of Preventive and Curative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre @2 Nijmegen @3 NLD @Z 4 aut.`
A14	`06`			`@1 Department of Orthodontics and Oral Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre @2 Nijmegen @3 NLD @Z 5 aut.`
A14	`07`			`@1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre @2 Nijmegen @3 NLD @Z 6 aut.`
A14	`08`			`@1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre @2 Nijmegen @3 NLD @Z 7 aut.`
A20				`@1 811-817`
A21				`@1 2010`
A23	`01`			`@0 ENG`
A43	`01`			`@1 INIST @2 3005 @5 354000181552430150`
A44				`@0 0000 @1 © 2010 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.`
A45				`@0 21 ref.`
A47	`01`	`1`		`@0 10-0183418`
A60				`@1 P`
A61				`@0 A`
A64	`01`	`1`		`@0 Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery`
A66	`01`			`@0 USA`
C01	`01`		`ENG`	@0 Purpose: To investigate the reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods to determine a reliable method to define the proper anatomical position of the mandibular canal based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Materials and Methods: Five dentate and 5 edentate patients were selected at random from the CBCT database. Two independent observers traced both the left and the right mandibular canal using 3-dimensional image-based planning software (Procera System NobelGuide; Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden). All mandibular canals were traced using 3 different methods. Method I was based on coronal views, also known as cross-sections. Panorama-like reconstructions were the starting point for method II. The third method combined methods I and II. Results: With respect to interobserver reliability, no significant difference (P = .34) for the various methods was observed. The reproducibility was better in edentate than in dentate jaws (P = .0015). The difference between 2 tracings was the lowest for the combined method: within a range of 1.3 mm in 95% of the course of the canal. The most obvious deviations were mainly seen in the anterior part of the canal. Conclusions: The best reproducible method for mandibular canal tracing is the combined method III. Between observers, still a mean 95th percentile deviation threshold of 1.3 mm (SD 0.384) is noted, indicating that a safety zone of 1.7 mm should be respected. When planning surgery on CBCT-based data, surgeons should be aware of the obvious deviations located in the region of the anterior loop of the canal.
C02	`01`	`X`		`@0 002B10`
C03	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Tomodensitométrie @5 04`
C03	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Computerized axial tomography @5 04`
C03	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Tomodensitometría @5 04`
C03	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Chirurgie @5 05`
C03	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Surgery @5 05`
C03	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Cirugía @5 05`
C03	`03`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Reproductibilité @5 07`
C03	`03`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Reproducibility @5 07`
C03	`03`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Reproductividad @5 07`
C03	`04`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Traçage @5 08`
C03	`04`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Tracing @5 08`
C03	`04`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Trazado @5 08`
C03	`05`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Méthode @5 09`
C03	`05`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Method @5 09`
C03	`05`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Método @5 09`
C03	`06`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Anatomie @5 13`
C03	`06`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Anatomy @5 13`
C03	`06`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Anatomía @5 13`
C03	`07`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Position @5 14`
C03	`07`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Position @5 14`
C03	`07`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Posición @5 14`
C03	`08`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Mandibule @5 15`
C03	`08`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Mandible @5 15`
C03	`08`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Mandíbula @5 15`
C03	`09`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Stomatologie @5 16`
C03	`09`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Stomatology @5 16`
C03	`09`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Estomatología @5 16`
C03	`10`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Traitement @5 30`
C03	`10`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Treatment @5 30`
C03	`10`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Tratamiento @5 30`
C07	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Imagerie médicale @5 37`
C07	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Medical imagery @5 37`
C07	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Imaginería médica @5 37`
C07	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Radiodiagnostic @5 38`
C07	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Radiodiagnosis @5 38`
C07	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Radiodiagnóstico @5 38`
N21				`@1 123`
N44	`01`			`@1 OTO`
N82				`@1 OTO`

Format Inist (serveur)

NO :	PASCAL 10-0183418 INIST
ET :	Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal
AU :	GERLACH (Niek L.); MEIJER (Gert J.); MAAL (Thomas J. J.); MULDER (Jan); RANGEL (Frits A.); BORSTLAP (Wilfred A.); BERGE (Stefaan J.)
AF :	Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (1 aut.); 3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges/Pays-Bas (1 aut., 5 aut., 6 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (2 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (3 aut.); Department of Preventive and Curative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (4 aut.); Department of Orthodontics and Oral Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (5 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (6 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (7 aut.)
DT :	Publication en série; Niveau analytique
SO :	Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery; ISSN 0278-2391; Coden JOMSDA; Etats-Unis; Da. 2010; Vol. 68; No. 4; Pp. 811-817; Bibl. 21 ref.
LA :	Anglais
EA :	Purpose: To investigate the reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods to determine a reliable method to define the proper anatomical position of the mandibular canal based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Materials and Methods: Five dentate and 5 edentate patients were selected at random from the CBCT database. Two independent observers traced both the left and the right mandibular canal using 3-dimensional image-based planning software (Procera System NobelGuide; Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden). All mandibular canals were traced using 3 different methods. Method I was based on coronal views, also known as cross-sections. Panorama-like reconstructions were the starting point for method II. The third method combined methods I and II. Results: With respect to interobserver reliability, no significant difference (P = .34) for the various methods was observed. The reproducibility was better in edentate than in dentate jaws (P = .0015). The difference between 2 tracings was the lowest for the combined method: within a range of 1.3 mm in 95% of the course of the canal. The most obvious deviations were mainly seen in the anterior part of the canal. Conclusions: The best reproducible method for mandibular canal tracing is the combined method III. Between observers, still a mean 95th percentile deviation threshold of 1.3 mm (SD 0.384) is noted, indicating that a safety zone of 1.7 mm should be respected. When planning surgery on CBCT-based data, surgeons should be aware of the obvious deviations located in the region of the anterior loop of the canal.
CC :	002B10
FD :	Tomodensitométrie; Chirurgie; Reproductibilité; Traçage; Méthode; Anatomie; Position; Mandibule; Stomatologie; Traitement
FG :	Imagerie médicale; Radiodiagnostic
ED :	Computerized axial tomography; Surgery; Reproducibility; Tracing; Method; Anatomy; Position; Mandible; Stomatology; Treatment
EG :	Medical imagery; Radiodiagnosis
SD :	Tomodensitometría; Cirugía; Reproductividad; Trazado; Método; Anatomía; Posición; Mandíbula; Estomatología; Tratamiento
LO :	INIST-3005.354000181552430150
ID :	10-0183418

Links to Exploration step

Pascal:10-0183418

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal</title>
<author><name sortKey="Gerlach, Niek L" sort="Gerlach, Niek L" uniqKey="Gerlach N" first="Niek L." last="Gerlach">Niek L. Gerlach</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges</s1>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Meijer, Gert J" sort="Meijer, Gert J" uniqKey="Meijer G" first="Gert J." last="Meijer">Gert J. Meijer</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Maal, Thomas J J" sort="Maal, Thomas J J" uniqKey="Maal T" first="Thomas J. J." last="Maal">Thomas J. J. Maal</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="04"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Mulder, Jan" sort="Mulder, Jan" uniqKey="Mulder J" first="Jan" last="Mulder">Jan Mulder</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="05"><s1>Department of Preventive and Curative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Rangel, Frits A" sort="Rangel, Frits A" uniqKey="Rangel F" first="Frits A." last="Rangel">Frits A. Rangel</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges</s1>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="06"><s1>Department of Orthodontics and Oral Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Borstlap, Wilfred A" sort="Borstlap, Wilfred A" uniqKey="Borstlap W" first="Wilfred A." last="Borstlap">Wilfred A. Borstlap</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges</s1>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="07"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Berge, Stefaan J" sort="Berge, Stefaan J" uniqKey="Berge S" first="Stefaan J." last="Berge">Stefaan J. Berge</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="08"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>7 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">10-0183418</idno>
<date when="2010">2010</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 10-0183418 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:10-0183418</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000226</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal</title>
<author><name sortKey="Gerlach, Niek L" sort="Gerlach, Niek L" uniqKey="Gerlach N" first="Niek L." last="Gerlach">Niek L. Gerlach</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges</s1>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Meijer, Gert J" sort="Meijer, Gert J" uniqKey="Meijer G" first="Gert J." last="Meijer">Gert J. Meijer</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Maal, Thomas J J" sort="Maal, Thomas J J" uniqKey="Maal T" first="Thomas J. J." last="Maal">Thomas J. J. Maal</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="04"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Mulder, Jan" sort="Mulder, Jan" uniqKey="Mulder J" first="Jan" last="Mulder">Jan Mulder</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="05"><s1>Department of Preventive and Curative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Rangel, Frits A" sort="Rangel, Frits A" uniqKey="Rangel F" first="Frits A." last="Rangel">Frits A. Rangel</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges</s1>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="06"><s1>Department of Orthodontics and Oral Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Borstlap, Wilfred A" sort="Borstlap, Wilfred A" uniqKey="Borstlap W" first="Wilfred A." last="Borstlap">Wilfred A. Borstlap</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges</s1>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="07"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Berge, Stefaan J" sort="Berge, Stefaan J" uniqKey="Berge S" first="Stefaan J." last="Berge">Stefaan J. Berge</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="08"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>7 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. oral maxillofac. surg.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0278-2391</idno>
<imprint><date when="2010">2010</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. oral maxillofac. surg.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0278-2391</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Anatomy</term>
<term>Computerized axial tomography</term>
<term>Mandible</term>
<term>Method</term>
<term>Position</term>
<term>Reproducibility</term>
<term>Stomatology</term>
<term>Surgery</term>
<term>Tracing</term>
<term>Treatment</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Tomodensitométrie</term>
<term>Chirurgie</term>
<term>Reproductibilité</term>
<term>Traçage</term>
<term>Méthode</term>
<term>Anatomie</term>
<term>Position</term>
<term>Mandibule</term>
<term>Stomatologie</term>
<term>Traitement</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Purpose: To investigate the reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods to determine a reliable method to define the proper anatomical position of the mandibular canal based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Materials and Methods: Five dentate and 5 edentate patients were selected at random from the CBCT database. Two independent observers traced both the left and the right mandibular canal using 3-dimensional image-based planning software (Procera System NobelGuide; Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden). All mandibular canals were traced using 3 different methods. Method I was based on coronal views, also known as cross-sections. Panorama-like reconstructions were the starting point for method II. The third method combined methods I and II. Results: With respect to interobserver reliability, no significant difference (P = .34) for the various methods was observed. The reproducibility was better in edentate than in dentate jaws (P = .0015). The difference between 2 tracings was the lowest for the combined method: within a range of 1.3 mm in 95% of the course of the canal. The most obvious deviations were mainly seen in the anterior part of the canal. Conclusions: The best reproducible method for mandibular canal tracing is the combined method III. Between observers, still a mean 95th percentile deviation threshold of 1.3 mm (SD 0.384) is noted, indicating that a safety zone of 1.7 mm should be respected. When planning surgery on CBCT-based data, surgeons should be aware of the obvious deviations located in the region of the anterior loop of the canal.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0278-2391</s0>
</fA01>
<fA02 i1="01"><s0>JOMSDA</s0>
</fA02>
<fA03 i2="1"><s0>J. oral maxillofac. surg.</s0>
</fA03>
<fA05><s2>68</s2>
</fA05>
<fA06><s2>4</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>GERLACH (Niek L.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>MEIJER (Gert J.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="03" i2="1"><s1>MAAL (Thomas J. J.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="04" i2="1"><s1>MULDER (Jan)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="05" i2="1"><s1>RANGEL (Frits A.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="06" i2="1"><s1>BORSTLAP (Wilfred A.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="07" i2="1"><s1>BERGE (Stefaan J.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="02"><s1>3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges</s1>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="04"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="05"><s1>Department of Preventive and Curative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="06"><s1>Department of Orthodontics and Oral Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="07"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="08"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre</s1>
<s2>Nijmegen</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>7 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s1>811-817</s1>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2010</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>3005</s2>
<s5>354000181552430150</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2010 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA45><s0>21 ref.</s0>
</fA45>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>10-0183418</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>USA</s0>
</fA66>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>Purpose: To investigate the reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods to determine a reliable method to define the proper anatomical position of the mandibular canal based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Materials and Methods: Five dentate and 5 edentate patients were selected at random from the CBCT database. Two independent observers traced both the left and the right mandibular canal using 3-dimensional image-based planning software (Procera System NobelGuide; Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden). All mandibular canals were traced using 3 different methods. Method I was based on coronal views, also known as cross-sections. Panorama-like reconstructions were the starting point for method II. The third method combined methods I and II. Results: With respect to interobserver reliability, no significant difference (P = .34) for the various methods was observed. The reproducibility was better in edentate than in dentate jaws (P = .0015). The difference between 2 tracings was the lowest for the combined method: within a range of 1.3 mm in 95% of the course of the canal. The most obvious deviations were mainly seen in the anterior part of the canal. Conclusions: The best reproducible method for mandibular canal tracing is the combined method III. Between observers, still a mean 95th percentile deviation threshold of 1.3 mm (SD 0.384) is noted, indicating that a safety zone of 1.7 mm should be respected. When planning surgery on CBCT-based data, surgeons should be aware of the obvious deviations located in the region of the anterior loop of the canal.</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>002B10</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Tomodensitométrie</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Computerized axial tomography</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Tomodensitometría</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Chirurgie</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Surgery</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Cirugía</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Reproductibilité</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Reproducibility</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Reproductividad</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Traçage</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Tracing</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Trazado</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Méthode</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Method</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Método</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Anatomie</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Anatomy</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Anatomía</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Position</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Position</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Posición</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Mandibule</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Mandible</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Mandíbula</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Stomatologie</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Stomatology</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Estomatología</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Traitement</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Treatment</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Tratamiento</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Imagerie médicale</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Medical imagery</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Imaginería médica</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Radiodiagnostic</s0>
<s5>38</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Radiodiagnosis</s0>
<s5>38</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Radiodiagnóstico</s0>
<s5>38</s5>
</fC07>
<fN21><s1>123</s1>
</fN21>
<fN44 i1="01"><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN44>
<fN82><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
<server><NO>PASCAL 10-0183418 INIST</NO>
<ET>Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal</ET>
<AU>GERLACH (Niek L.); MEIJER (Gert J.); MAAL (Thomas J. J.); MULDER (Jan); RANGEL (Frits A.); BORSTLAP (Wilfred A.); BERGE (Stefaan J.)</AU>
<AF>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (1 aut.); 3D Facial Imaging Research Group Nijmegen-Bruges/Pays-Bas (1 aut., 5 aut., 6 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (2 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (3 aut.); Department of Preventive and Curative Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (4 aut.); Department of Orthodontics and Oral Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (5 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (6 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre/Nijmegen/Pays-Bas (7 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery; ISSN 0278-2391; Coden JOMSDA; Etats-Unis; Da. 2010; Vol. 68; No. 4; Pp. 811-817; Bibl. 21 ref.</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>Purpose: To investigate the reproducibility of 3 different tracing methods to determine a reliable method to define the proper anatomical position of the mandibular canal based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Materials and Methods: Five dentate and 5 edentate patients were selected at random from the CBCT database. Two independent observers traced both the left and the right mandibular canal using 3-dimensional image-based planning software (Procera System NobelGuide; Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden). All mandibular canals were traced using 3 different methods. Method I was based on coronal views, also known as cross-sections. Panorama-like reconstructions were the starting point for method II. The third method combined methods I and II. Results: With respect to interobserver reliability, no significant difference (P = .34) for the various methods was observed. The reproducibility was better in edentate than in dentate jaws (P = .0015). The difference between 2 tracings was the lowest for the combined method: within a range of 1.3 mm in 95% of the course of the canal. The most obvious deviations were mainly seen in the anterior part of the canal. Conclusions: The best reproducible method for mandibular canal tracing is the combined method III. Between observers, still a mean 95th percentile deviation threshold of 1.3 mm (SD 0.384) is noted, indicating that a safety zone of 1.7 mm should be respected. When planning surgery on CBCT-based data, surgeons should be aware of the obvious deviations located in the region of the anterior loop of the canal.</EA>
<CC>002B10</CC>
<FD>Tomodensitométrie; Chirurgie; Reproductibilité; Traçage; Méthode; Anatomie; Position; Mandibule; Stomatologie; Traitement</FD>
<FG>Imagerie médicale; Radiodiagnostic</FG>
<ED>Computerized axial tomography; Surgery; Reproducibility; Tracing; Method; Anatomy; Position; Mandible; Stomatology; Treatment</ED>
<EG>Medical imagery; Radiodiagnosis</EG>
<SD>Tomodensitometría; Cirugía; Reproductividad; Trazado; Método; Anatomía; Posición; Mandíbula; Estomatología; Tratamiento</SD>
<LO>INIST-3005.354000181552430150</LO>
<ID>10-0183418</ID>
</server>
</inist>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000226 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000226 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    PascalFrancis
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     Pascal:10-0183418
   |texte=   Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32.
Data generation: Thu Nov 30 15:26:48 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 8 16:36:20 2022

	Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté

Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal

Reproducibility of 3 Different Tracing Methods Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Determining the Anatomical Position of the Mandibular Canal

Source :

Descripteurs français

English descriptors

Abstract

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Format Inist (serveur)

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri