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

Diplomate, American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill, NC.
Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology 06/2012; 113(6):817-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A Position Paper Subcommittee of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (AAOMR) reviewed the literature since the original position statement on selection criteria for radiology in dental implantology, published in 2000. All current planar modalities, including intraoral, panoramic, and cephalometric, as well as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) are discussed, along with radiation dosimetry and anatomy considerations. We provide research-based, consensus-derived clinical guidance for practitioners on the appropriate use of specific imaging modalities in dental implant treatment planning. Specifically, the AAOMR recommends that cross-sectional imaging be used for the assessment of all dental implant sites and that CBCT is the imaging method of choice for gaining this information. This document will be periodically revised to reflect new evidence.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 3D diagnostic techniques based on 3-dimensional digital models of patients’ tissues are becoming an increasingly important part of orthodontic and orthognathic treatment planning. Modern methods of visualization concerning dentofacial skeleton, soft tissues and dental arches can be considered an answer to the clinicians’ needs and lead to the creation of 3D orthodontic diagnostics. Techniques of converting anatomic data into a 3-dimensional model and fusing tissue models into one complete “virtual head” composite model could influence the case management improving both treatment planning and doctor-patient interaction. However, such new possibilities and increasing amount of diagnostic data require clinicians to master new sets of skills, including operating specialized software and complex interpretations of a vastly expanded amount of diagnostic data.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper provides a systematic review of the literature from January 2003 to April 2014 pertaining to the incidence, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and offers recommendations for its management based on multidisciplinary international consensus. ONJ is associated with oncology-dose parenteral anti-resorptive therapy of bisphosphonates (BP) and denosumab (Dmab). The incidence of ONJ is greatest in the oncology patient population (1-15%) where high doses of these medications are used at frequent intervals. In the osteoporosis patient population, the incidence of ONJ is estimated at 0.001% to 0.01%, marginally higher than the incidence in the general population (<0.001%). New insights into the pathophysiology of ONJ include anti-resorptive effects of BPs and Dmab, effects of BPs on gamma delta T-cells and on monocyte and macrophage function, as well as the role of local bacterial infection, inflammation and necrosis. Advances in imaging include the use of cone beam computerized tomography assessing cortical and cancellous architecture with lower radiation exposure, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scanning and positron emission tomography, although plain films often suffice. Other risk factors for ONJ include glucocorticoid use, maxillary or mandibular bone surgery, poor oral hygiene, chronic inflammation, diabetes mellitus, ill-fitting dentures, as well as other drugs, including anti-angiogenic agents. Prevention strategies for ONJ include elimination or stabilization of oral disease prior to initiation of anti-resorptive agents, as well as maintenance of good oral hygiene. In those patients at high risk for the development of ONJ, including cancer patients receiving high-dose BP or Dmab therapy, consideration should be given to withholding anti-resorptive therapy following extensive oral surgery until the surgical site heals with mature mucosal coverage. Management of ONJ is based on the stage of the disease, size of the lesions, as well as the presence of contributing drug therapy and comorbidity. Conservative therapy includes topical antibiotic oral rinses and systemic antibiotic therapy. Localized surgical debridement is indicated in advanced non-responsive disease and has been successful. Early data have suggested enhanced osseous wound healing with teriparatide in those without contraindications for its use. Experimental therapy includes bone marrow stem cell intralesional transplantation, low-level laser therapy, local platelet-derived growth factor application, hyperbaric oxygen, and tissue grafting. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Journal of bone and mineral research: the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 11/2014; DOI:10.1002/jbmr.2405 · 6.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Obiettivo: L’obiettivo di questo studio retrospettivo è valutare l’efficacia di una socket repair technique modificata rispetto alla tecnica originariamente descritta. Materiali e Metodi: Sono stati inclusi 24 pazienti, con alveoli post-estrattivi di Tipo II, suddivisi in due gruppi, Gruppo test (8) e Gruppo controllo (16). Il Gruppo test è stato trattato con estrazione del dente e socket repair technique modificata con posizionamento implantare contestuale. Il Gruppo controllo è stato invece sottoposto a socket technique e, successivamente, dopo 3 mesi, è stato eseguito il posizionamento implantare. Valutazioni cliniche e radiografiche sono state eseguite al baseline (T0) e dopo 3 mesi (T1), 6 mesi (T2) e 12 mesi (T3) di follow-up dal carico protesico. Per valutare l’outcome estetico, i casi clinici sono stati esaminati in cieco da due differenti operatori al fine di valutare gli indici Pink Esthetic Score (PES) e White Esthetic Score (WES). L’analisi statistica per confrontare i valori medi tra i due gruppi è stata il t-Student (p-value<0.05). Risultati: dopo 12 mesi di follow-up, nessun impianto è fallito. In nessun caso è stato riportata la presenza di mobilità, suppurazione o radiotrasparenze periapicali. Nessuna differenza statisticamente significativa degli indici PES/WES è stata evidenziata tra i due gruppi. Se confrontati singolarmente i valori medi dei parametri degli indici, non sono state riportate differenze statisticamente significative, eccetto che per il parametro contorno gengivale in cui il p-value<0.05. Conclusioni. La tecnica modificata della socket repair descritta in questo studio si è dimostrata efficace nel garantire risultati sovrapponibili a quella originaria. Il posizionamento implantare contestuale sembrerebbe migliorare l’outcome estetico finale in termini di contorno buccale.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 5, 2014