Darstellbarkeit von Knochenstrukturen und enossalen Implantaten mit der digitalen Volumentomographie und zweidimensionalem Zahnfilmverfahren

Visibility of bone structures and dental implants using CBCT and two dimensional intraoral radiography

von Isabel Steinbacher
Dissertation
Datum der mündl. Prüfung:2016-10-25
Erschienen:2016-09-23
Betreuer:PD Dr. Sabine Sennhenn-Kirchner
Gutachter:Prof. Dr. Christina, Unterberg-Buchwald
Gutachter:Prof. Dr. Martin Oppermann
Zum Verlinken/Zitieren: http://dx.doi.org/10.53846/goediss-5815

 

 

Dateien

Name:Ediss Isabel Steinbacher 25.10.16.pdf
Size:2.17Mb
Format:PDF

Lizenzbestimmungen:

Zusammenfassung

Englisch

Introduction: This study compares cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and two dimensional intraoral radiography with regard to the visibility of bone structures, foreign bodies located in bone structures and dental implants. To begin with dental implants were placed in pig jaws. Next, dental materials with different radiological densities and implants of different sizes were added to the bone. In addition the implants and the bone were damaged in different ways. The bends of some implants were removed completely or parts of the bends were removed so a vertical slot on the implant was produced. The bone damage occurred in four different ways: 1. The bone was split on the surface 2. Two sizes of cone shaped bone defects were placed close to the implants 3. A large opening was created by drilling and a smaller implant was placed inside the bone 4. A complete bone perforation was completed before placing the implant Furthermore three different materials were added as foreign bodies into the bone: • Steel spheres with two diameters (1 mm and 1.6 mm) • Beta tri calcium phosphate (bone augmentation material) • Gutta-percha (rootfilling material) These specimens were x-rayed using the three compared radiological methods. Finally, ten dentistry students from the clinical department evaluated the produced x-rays by using a questionnaire. Results: Significant differences were observed in the detection of implant defects and the foreign material Gutta-percha. CBCT was rated significantly lower by the test group than the two dimensional methods in this study. The test group of students could not find as many defects in the CBCT as they did in the two dimensional radiological methods. However one bone defect was only detected with three dimensional CBCT: the complete perforation of the bone before placing the implant. Discussion: In comparison with the two dimensional intraoral x-ray methods, CBCT did not provide the test group with better visibility on three dimensional defects. Explanation of these results could be the occurrence of metal artefacts while recording the CBCT. Metal bodies cause artefacts in the recorded three dimensional x-ray. Low quality visibility around the metal body caused poor results in the x-ray data. A second explanation could be the short experience of the test group in evaluating CBCT data. The results of this study show that two dimensional intra oral x-ray still has its place in dentistry today. Because of its small radioactive contamination and its clear visibility of all structures, intraoral x-ray still has a high standing in the everyday life of dentistry and implantology.
Keywords: CBCT; intraoral radiography; dental implants
Schlagwörter: DVT; digitale Volumentomographie; digitaler Zahnfilm; konventioneller Zahnfilm; zahnärztliche Implantate
 
Statistik