Share Page:

Volume 27 , Issue 1
January/February 2012

Pages 111118

Comparison of Restoratively Projected and Surgically Acceptable Virtual Implant Position for Mandibular Overdentures

William Scarfe, BDS, FRACDS, MS/William Shane Vaughn, MS/Allan G. Farman, BDS, PhD, EdS, MBA, DSc/Bryan T. Harris, CDT, DMD/Mary M. Paris, DMD

PMID: 22299087

Purpose: To compare differences between restoratively projected and surgically acceptable virtual implant positions at sites identified by cylindric radiopaque markers on diagnostic templates for implant-retained mandibular overdentures using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart audit of a CBCT database identified 77 subjects who had been imaged to assess the residual alveolar ridge in the completely edentulous mandible prior to implant placement for mandibular overdentures. Individuals had been scanned with a diagnostic template using cylindric markers to identify the restoratively derived locations and trajectories for implants. Qualitative and quantitative differences between restoratively projected and surgically acceptable positions on transaxial CBCT images were recorded using implant planning software based on a standard implant. Results: Only 6.4% of restoratively projected positions were within the criteria for surgically acceptable implant placement. However, most implant placement plans (77.9%) could be modified to fulfill surgically acceptable criteria. Of the projected implant positions, 15.7% were deemed inadvisable because of potential anatomical complications. Restoratively projected implant position was more likely to deviate buccally than lingually to the available residual alveolar ridge, as determined by CBCT. The mean angular deviation of the clinical prediction from ideal was 14.0 5.5 degrees, the mean platform translation was 2.1 1.3 mm, and the mean apex translation was 2.3 1.5 mm. The average residual alveolar ridge reduction required in the posterior segment was 3.9 2.5 mm. Conclusion: The restoratively projected trajectory for implant placement determined by visual inspection, diagnostic casts, and panoramic radiography deviated from the surgically acceptable location determined using CBCT data sets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:111118

Key words: cone beam computed tomography, dental implants, dental prosthesis, edentulous jaw

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2018 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us