{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020283018867924527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0023584905660377358, 'mean_word_length': 5.293768545994065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography(CBCT) and Digital Radiography Measurements as an Aid in the Placements of Dental Implants: A Retrospective Stud

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has gained wide popularity among dentists. This can be attributed to its ability to provide bone morphology, bone dimension details and vital structure locations by producing cross-sectional images along the arches. However, one of the reasons routine usage is hampered is its high cost. It would be a great benefit to the practice of dental implants if there was a more economical alternative. Anatomic landmarks in both the maxilla and the mandible are important to be considered during implant placement, and if overlooked, may lead to failures and complications and this is where Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has a slight edge over its other diagnostic counterparts. However, newer digital radiographs have been found to be economical and fairly accurate in line with the highly sophisticated CT scans. Therefore, this study aimed to compare and assess the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT and digital radiography (vistascan) in the placement of implants, which may provide an aid in terms of providing an accurate implant size during the surgical procedure for successful dental implant placement. Data was collected from CBCT and vistascan image measurements made pre-operatively prior to implant placement. The measurements were then compared using certain anatomical landmarks as reference in the maxillary and mandibular arches and additionally, with the actual size of implant placed post-operatively. Statistical analysis using SPSS V22 and paired ‘t’ tests and ANOVA revealed no significant differences in the measurements between both the images. (P>0.05). Additionally, both the image measurements were very close to the actual size of the implant placed. Since both imaging techniques were similar in terms of accuracy for implant placement, use of digital radiography (vistascan) may be encouraged as a cost effective option as against CBCT which is expensive for routine assessment. 