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.

Conventional spiral and low-dose computed mandibular tomography for dental implant planning.

Identifieur interne : 002F23 ( PubMed/Checkpoint ); précédent : 002F22; suivant : 002F24

Conventional spiral and low-dose computed mandibular tomography for dental implant planning.

Auteurs : A. Ekestubbe [Suède]

Source :

RBID : pubmed:10635103

Descripteurs français

English descriptors

Abstract

Absorbed doses to radiosensitive organs in the head and neck from pre-implant conventional hypocycloidal, conventional spiral and computed tomography (CT) were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters in an anthropomorphic phantom head. From conventional tomography organ doses, except to the major salivary glands, were below 0.2 mGy. They were considerably higher with CT than conventional tomography. Tomographic images of posterior lower jaw regions were evaluated regarding measurement reliability in conventional spiral tomograms. Observers measured the distance marginal crest-mandibular canal, marked their measuring points and estimated the length of an intended Brånemark implant. The variability between observers, mainly due to the intra-observer variation, decreased with multiple readings and optimized image quality. The suggested implant length was the same as the one inserted in 70% of the cases. Tomographic images from mandibular body segments were used to test the influence of radiation exposure and scanning mode on image quality in CT and compare the quality of the CT images with that in conventional spiral tomograms. Mandibular canal and marginal bone crest visibility was unaffected by radiation dose in CT examinations. Differences among CT scanning modes and between CT and conventional spiral tomography were highly significant. Frontal CT scans or conventional spiral tomograms were preferred. In cross-sectional images of the posterior lower jaw image quality in conventional spiral and reformatted CT at 40 mAs and 80 mAs was compared. Observers graded the acceptability of images for implant planning and traced the contours of the mandibular body and canal. Conventional, spiral tomograms were subjectively preferred over reformatted CT images. Differences between CT images at different mAs settings were not statistically significant. The mandibular canal was more frequently untraceable in high-dose CT. The use of tomography for dental implant planning was studied by means of a survey among oral radiology clinics in Sweden and implantology clinics in other countries. It was used by 93.4% but varied markedly between and within anatomic regions. CT was used by 73%. Radiation doses varied considerably within and between different CT brands. The availability rather than the clinical need strongly influenced the choice of technique. From the point of view of radiation dose and information necessary for implant planning conventional spiral tomography is to be preferred over reformatted CT. However, when CT is the only technique at hand, it can be performed with a lower than standard mA-setting.

PubMed: 10635103


Affiliations:


Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)


Links to Exploration step

pubmed:10635103

Le document en format XML

<record>
<TEI>
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title xml:lang="en">Conventional spiral and low-dose computed mandibular tomography for dental implant planning.</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Ekestubbe, A" sort="Ekestubbe, A" uniqKey="Ekestubbe A" first="A" last="Ekestubbe">A. Ekestubbe</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="4">
<nlm:affiliation>Department of Oral Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Göteborg University, Sweden.</nlm:affiliation>
<country xml:lang="fr">Suède</country>
<wicri:regionArea>Department of Oral Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Göteborg University</wicri:regionArea>
<placeName>
<settlement type="city">Göteborg</settlement>
<region nuts="1">Götaland</region>
<region nuts="1">Suède occidentale</region>
</placeName>
<orgName type="university">Université de Göteborg</orgName>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno>
<date when="1999">1999</date>
<idno type="RBID">pubmed:10635103</idno>
<idno type="pmid">10635103</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">003A18</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">003A18</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">003A18</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">003A18</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Checkpoint">003A18</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Checkpoint" wicri:step="PubMed">003A18</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<title xml:lang="en">Conventional spiral and low-dose computed mandibular tomography for dental implant planning.</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Ekestubbe, A" sort="Ekestubbe, A" uniqKey="Ekestubbe A" first="A" last="Ekestubbe">A. Ekestubbe</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="4">
<nlm:affiliation>Department of Oral Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Göteborg University, Sweden.</nlm:affiliation>
<country xml:lang="fr">Suède</country>
<wicri:regionArea>Department of Oral Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Göteborg University</wicri:regionArea>
<placeName>
<settlement type="city">Göteborg</settlement>
<region nuts="1">Götaland</region>
<region nuts="1">Suède occidentale</region>
</placeName>
<orgName type="university">Université de Göteborg</orgName>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series>
<title level="j">Swedish dental journal. Supplement</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0348-6672</idno>
<imprint>
<date when="1999" type="published">1999</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en">
<term>Artifacts</term>
<term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods)</term>
<term>Dental Implants</term>
<term>Humans</term>
<term>Jaw, Edentulous (diagnostic imaging)</term>
<term>Mandible (diagnostic imaging)</term>
<term>Patient Care Planning</term>
<term>Phantoms, Imaging</term>
<term>Radiation Dosage</term>
<term>Radiography, Dental (methods)</term>
<term>Reproducibility of Results</term>
<term>Tomography, X-Ray (instrumentation)</term>
<term>Tomography, X-Ray (methods)</term>
<term>Tomography, X-Ray Computed (methods)</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr">
<term>Artéfacts</term>
<term>Dose de radiation</term>
<term>Fantômes en imagerie</term>
<term>Humains</term>
<term>Implants dentaires</term>
<term>Mandibule (imagerie diagnostique)</term>
<term>Mâchoire édentée (imagerie diagnostique)</term>
<term>Planification des soins du patient</term>
<term>Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux ()</term>
<term>Radiographie dentaire ()</term>
<term>Reproductibilité des résultats</term>
<term>Tomodensitométrie ()</term>
<term>Tomographie à rayons X ()</term>
<term>Tomographie à rayons X (instrumentation)</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" xml:lang="en">
<term>Dental Implants</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="diagnostic imaging" xml:lang="en">
<term>Jaw, Edentulous</term>
<term>Mandible</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="imagerie diagnostique" xml:lang="fr">
<term>Mandibule</term>
<term>Mâchoire édentée</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="instrumentation" xml:lang="en">
<term>Tomography, X-Ray</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en">
<term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</term>
<term>Radiography, Dental</term>
<term>Tomography, X-Ray</term>
<term>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en">
<term>Artifacts</term>
<term>Humans</term>
<term>Patient Care Planning</term>
<term>Phantoms, Imaging</term>
<term>Radiation Dosage</term>
<term>Reproducibility of Results</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr">
<term>Artéfacts</term>
<term>Dose de radiation</term>
<term>Fantômes en imagerie</term>
<term>Humains</term>
<term>Implants dentaires</term>
<term>Planification des soins du patient</term>
<term>Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux</term>
<term>Radiographie dentaire</term>
<term>Reproductibilité des résultats</term>
<term>Tomodensitométrie</term>
<term>Tomographie à rayons X</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front>
<div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Absorbed doses to radiosensitive organs in the head and neck from pre-implant conventional hypocycloidal, conventional spiral and computed tomography (CT) were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters in an anthropomorphic phantom head. From conventional tomography organ doses, except to the major salivary glands, were below 0.2 mGy. They were considerably higher with CT than conventional tomography. Tomographic images of posterior lower jaw regions were evaluated regarding measurement reliability in conventional spiral tomograms. Observers measured the distance marginal crest-mandibular canal, marked their measuring points and estimated the length of an intended Brånemark implant. The variability between observers, mainly due to the intra-observer variation, decreased with multiple readings and optimized image quality. The suggested implant length was the same as the one inserted in 70% of the cases. Tomographic images from mandibular body segments were used to test the influence of radiation exposure and scanning mode on image quality in CT and compare the quality of the CT images with that in conventional spiral tomograms. Mandibular canal and marginal bone crest visibility was unaffected by radiation dose in CT examinations. Differences among CT scanning modes and between CT and conventional spiral tomography were highly significant. Frontal CT scans or conventional spiral tomograms were preferred. In cross-sectional images of the posterior lower jaw image quality in conventional spiral and reformatted CT at 40 mAs and 80 mAs was compared. Observers graded the acceptability of images for implant planning and traced the contours of the mandibular body and canal. Conventional, spiral tomograms were subjectively preferred over reformatted CT images. Differences between CT images at different mAs settings were not statistically significant. The mandibular canal was more frequently untraceable in high-dose CT. The use of tomography for dental implant planning was studied by means of a survey among oral radiology clinics in Sweden and implantology clinics in other countries. It was used by 93.4% but varied markedly between and within anatomic regions. CT was used by 73%. Radiation doses varied considerably within and between different CT brands. The availability rather than the clinical need strongly influenced the choice of technique. From the point of view of radiation dose and information necessary for implant planning conventional spiral tomography is to be preferred over reformatted CT. However, when CT is the only technique at hand, it can be performed with a lower than standard mA-setting.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pubmed>
<MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM">
<PMID Version="1">10635103</PMID>
<DateCompleted>
<Year>2000</Year>
<Month>01</Month>
<Day>18</Day>
</DateCompleted>
<DateRevised>
<Year>2016</Year>
<Month>11</Month>
<Day>24</Day>
</DateRevised>
<Article PubModel="Print">
<Journal>
<ISSN IssnType="Print">0348-6672</ISSN>
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print">
<Volume>138</Volume>
<PubDate>
<Year>1999</Year>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
<Title>Swedish dental journal. Supplement</Title>
<ISOAbbreviation>Swed Dent J Suppl</ISOAbbreviation>
</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Conventional spiral and low-dose computed mandibular tomography for dental implant planning.</ArticleTitle>
<Pagination>
<MedlinePgn>1-82</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
<Abstract>
<AbstractText>Absorbed doses to radiosensitive organs in the head and neck from pre-implant conventional hypocycloidal, conventional spiral and computed tomography (CT) were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters in an anthropomorphic phantom head. From conventional tomography organ doses, except to the major salivary glands, were below 0.2 mGy. They were considerably higher with CT than conventional tomography. Tomographic images of posterior lower jaw regions were evaluated regarding measurement reliability in conventional spiral tomograms. Observers measured the distance marginal crest-mandibular canal, marked their measuring points and estimated the length of an intended Brånemark implant. The variability between observers, mainly due to the intra-observer variation, decreased with multiple readings and optimized image quality. The suggested implant length was the same as the one inserted in 70% of the cases. Tomographic images from mandibular body segments were used to test the influence of radiation exposure and scanning mode on image quality in CT and compare the quality of the CT images with that in conventional spiral tomograms. Mandibular canal and marginal bone crest visibility was unaffected by radiation dose in CT examinations. Differences among CT scanning modes and between CT and conventional spiral tomography were highly significant. Frontal CT scans or conventional spiral tomograms were preferred. In cross-sectional images of the posterior lower jaw image quality in conventional spiral and reformatted CT at 40 mAs and 80 mAs was compared. Observers graded the acceptability of images for implant planning and traced the contours of the mandibular body and canal. Conventional, spiral tomograms were subjectively preferred over reformatted CT images. Differences between CT images at different mAs settings were not statistically significant. The mandibular canal was more frequently untraceable in high-dose CT. The use of tomography for dental implant planning was studied by means of a survey among oral radiology clinics in Sweden and implantology clinics in other countries. It was used by 93.4% but varied markedly between and within anatomic regions. CT was used by 73%. Radiation doses varied considerably within and between different CT brands. The availability rather than the clinical need strongly influenced the choice of technique. From the point of view of radiation dose and information necessary for implant planning conventional spiral tomography is to be preferred over reformatted CT. However, when CT is the only technique at hand, it can be performed with a lower than standard mA-setting.</AbstractText>
</Abstract>
<AuthorList CompleteYN="Y">
<Author ValidYN="Y">
<LastName>Ekestubbe</LastName>
<ForeName>A</ForeName>
<Initials>A</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo>
<Affiliation>Department of Oral Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Göteborg University, Sweden.</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<Language>eng</Language>
<PublicationTypeList>
<PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType>
<PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType>
<PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType>
</PublicationTypeList>
</Article>
<MedlineJournalInfo>
<Country>Sweden</Country>
<MedlineTA>Swed Dent J Suppl</MedlineTA>
<NlmUniqueID>7905899</NlmUniqueID>
<ISSNLinking>0348-6672</ISSNLinking>
</MedlineJournalInfo>
<ChemicalList>
<Chemical>
<RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber>
<NameOfSubstance UI="D015921">Dental Implants</NameOfSubstance>
</Chemical>
</ChemicalList>
<CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset>
<CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset>
<MeshHeadingList>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D016477" MajorTopicYN="N">Artifacts</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D003758" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Implantation, Endosseous</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D015921" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Implants</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D007575" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000000981" MajorTopicYN="Y">diagnostic imaging</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D008334" MajorTopicYN="N">Mandible</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000000981" MajorTopicYN="N">diagnostic imaging</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D010347" MajorTopicYN="N">Patient Care Planning</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D019047" MajorTopicYN="N">Phantoms, Imaging</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D011829" MajorTopicYN="N">Radiation Dosage</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D011861" MajorTopicYN="N">Radiography, Dental</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D015203" MajorTopicYN="N">Reproducibility of Results</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D014056" MajorTopicYN="N">Tomography, X-Ray</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000295" MajorTopicYN="Y">instrumentation</QualifierName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D014057" MajorTopicYN="N">Tomography, X-Ray Computed</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
</MeshHeadingList>
</MedlineCitation>
<PubmedData>
<History>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed">
<Year>2000</Year>
<Month>1</Month>
<Day>15</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline">
<Year>2000</Year>
<Month>1</Month>
<Day>15</Day>
<Hour>0</Hour>
<Minute>1</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez">
<Year>2000</Year>
<Month>1</Month>
<Day>15</Day>
<Hour>0</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
</History>
<PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">10635103</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</PubmedData>
</pubmed>
<affiliations>
<list>
<country>
<li>Suède</li>
</country>
<region>
<li>Götaland</li>
<li>Suède occidentale</li>
</region>
<settlement>
<li>Göteborg</li>
</settlement>
<orgName>
<li>Université de Göteborg</li>
</orgName>
</list>
<tree>
<country name="Suède">
<region name="Götaland">
<name sortKey="Ekestubbe, A" sort="Ekestubbe, A" uniqKey="Ekestubbe A" first="A" last="Ekestubbe">A. Ekestubbe</name>
</region>
</country>
</tree>
</affiliations>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002F23 | SxmlIndent | more

Ou

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd -nk 002F23 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    PubMed
   |étape=   Checkpoint
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     pubmed:10635103
   |texte=   Conventional spiral and low-dose computed mandibular tomography for dental implant planning.
}}

Pour générer des pages wiki

HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/RBID.i   -Sk "pubmed:10635103" \
       | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd   \
       | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2 

Wicri

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