Original Article

The Cross-sectional Morphology of the Mandible in the Premolar Region: A Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study

Year: 2020 | Month: Jan-Jun | Volume 7 | Issue 1

Jake Samuels Alyssa Zhang Paul Monsour

References (21)

1.Chan HL, Misch K, Wang HL. Dental imaging in implant treatment planning. Implant Dent 2010;19:288-98.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

2.Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:490-7.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

3.Harris D, Horner K, Grondahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European association for osseointegration at the medical university of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:1243-53.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

4.Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam computed tomography: Justification for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:203-13.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

5.Koong B. Cone beam imaging: Is this the ultimate imaging modality? Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:1201-8.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

6.Monsour PA, Dudhia R. Implant radiography and radiology. Aust Dent J 2008;53 Suppl 1:S11-25.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

7.Tang Z, Liu X, Chen K. Comparison of digital panoramic radiography versus cone beam computerized tomography for measuring alveolar bone. Head Face Med 2017;13:2.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

8.Shelley AM, Glenny AM, Goodwin M, Brunton P, Horner K. Conventional radiography and cross-sectional imaging when planning dental implants in the anterior edentulous mandible to support an overdenture: A systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;43:20130321.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

9.Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: A position paper of the American academy of oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:630-7.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

10.Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC, et al. 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 Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;113:817-26.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

11.Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R, et al. E.A.O. Guidelines fo the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the European association for osseointegration in trinity college dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:566-70.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

12.Bolin A, Eliasson S, von Beetzen M, Jansson L. Radiographic evaluation of mandibular posterior implant sites: Correlation between panoramic and tomographic determinations. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:354-9.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

13.Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;92:458-63.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

14.Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:96-103.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

15.Peker I, Alkurt MT, Michcioglu T. The use of 3 different imaging methods for the localization of the mandibular canal in dental implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:463-70.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

16.Watanabe H, Abdul MM, Kurabayashi T, Aoki H. Mandible size and morphology determined with CT on a premise of dental implant operation. Surg Radiol Anat 2010;32:343-9.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

17.Herranz-Aparicio J, Marques J, Almendros-Marques N, Gay-Escoda C. Retrospective study of the bone morphology in the posterior mandibular region. Evaluation of the prevalence and the degree of lingual concavity and their possible complications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2016;21:e731-6.

View at Google Scholar

18.Ciftci ME, Aktan AM, Isman O, Yildirim E. Relationship between CBCT and panoramic images of the morphology and angulation of the posterior mandibular jaw bone. Surg Radiol Anat 2016;38:313-20.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

19.Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH, Yeh CY, Rudek I, Wang HL. Crosssectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:201-6.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

20.Quirynen M, Mraiwa N, van Steenberghe D, Jacobs R. Morphology and dimensions of the mandibular jaw bone in the interforaminal region in patients requiring implants in the distal areas. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:280-5.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

21.Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Eitner S, Zoller JE, Kreppel M. Lingual concavities in the mandible: A morphological study using crosssectional analysis determined by CBCT. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:254-9.

View at Google Scholar View at PUBMED

International Journal of Dental and Medical Specialty | In Association with SMOD. 10755366 - Visitors since June 1, 2015