Preoperative Radiological Assessment

  • Matthieu Schmittbuhl


An accurate radiographic presurgical assessment is required for planning implant placement in edentulous mandible. The radiographic evaluation helps the clinician to determine the quantity and quality of bone available in the alveolar ridge to support implants. Accurate information concerning the location of anatomical structures is of fundamental importance for preoperative planning. Damage to these structures or implant placement beyond the anatomical boundaries can cause considerable complications. This chapter provides thus information regarding the various imaging modalities available, their specific application and the potential information that each can provide concerning the anatomical appearance, location, dimensions and variations of critical structures that are routinely encountered during implant placement.


  1. 1.
    Kopp KC, Koslow AH, Abdo OS. Predictable implant placement with a diagnostic/surgical template and advanced radiographic imaging. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89:611–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ardekian L, Dodson TB. Complications associated with the placement of dental implants. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2003;15:243–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC, American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hatcher DC, Dial C, Mayorga C. Cone beam CT for pre-surgical assessment of implant sites. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2003;31:825–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kraut RA. Interactive CT diagnostics, planning and preparation for dental implants. Implant Dent. 1998;7:19–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lurie AG. Panoramic imaging. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2009. p. 175–90.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Granlund C, Thilander-Klang A, Ylhan B, Lofthag-Hansen S, Ekestubbe A. Absorbed organ and effective doses from digital intra-oral and panoramic radiography applying the ICRP 103 recommendations for effective dose estimations. Br J Radiol. 2016 Jul 25:20151052.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Okano T, Sur J. Radiation dose and protection in dentistry. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2010;46:112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission (EC). Radiation protection n°172: evidence based guidelines on cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacialradiology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2014.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suomalainen A, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Robinson S. Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging. 2015;6:1–16.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benson BW, Shetty V. Dental implants. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2009. p. 597–612.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2009. p. 109–51.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rathi S, Hatcher D. Radiologic evaluation of alveolar ridge in implant dentistry. CBCT technology. In: Tolstunov L, editor. Horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation in implant dentistry: a surgical manual. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016. p. 55–71.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:1558–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Resnik RR, Kircos L, Misch CE. Diagnostic imaging and techniques. In: Misch CE, editor. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, Elsevier; 2008. p. 38–67.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:424–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gulsahi A. Bone quality assessment for dental implants. In: Turkyilmaz I, editor. Implant dentistry—the most promising discipline of dentistry: Intech; 2011. p. 437–49.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Cone beam computed tomography. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2009. p. 225–43.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, Schoemer E. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:265–73.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Horner K. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:267–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:367–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horner K, Islam M, Flygare L, Tsiklakis K, Whaites E. Basic principles for use of dental cone beam computed tomography: consensus guidelines of the European Academy of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:187–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pauwels R, Zhang G, Theodorakou C, Walker A, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Horner K, SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Effective radiation dose and eye lens dose in dental cone beam CT: effect of field of view and angle of rotation. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20130654.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Denis K, White S, Coudyzer W, Lambrichts I, van Steenberghe D, Suetens P. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:309–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, Karayianni K, Kamenopoulou V, Hourdakis CJ. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol. 2005;56:413–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horner K. Radiation protection in dental radiology. Br J Radiol. 1994;67:1041–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Eitner S, Zöller JE, Kreppel M. Lingual concavities in the mandible: a morphological study using cross-sectional analysis determined by CBCT. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43:254–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dao TT, Mellor A. Sensory disturbances associated with implant surgery. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:462–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greenstein G, Tarnow D. The mental foramen and nerve: clinical and anatomical factors related to dental implant placement: a literature review. J Periodontol. 2006;77:1933–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klinge B, Petersson A, Maly P. Location of the mandibular canal: comparison of macroscopic findings, conventional radiography, and computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:327–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sharawy M, Misch CE. Anatomy for dental implants. In: Misch CE, editor. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, Elsevier; 2008. p. 217–24.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Romanos G, Tarnow D. Clinical recommendations for avoiding and managing surgical complications associated with implant dentistry: a review. J Periodontol. 2008;79:1317–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ikeda K, Ho KC, Nowicki BH, Haughton VM. Multiplanar MR and anatomic study of the mandibular canal. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17:579–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim ST, Hu KS, Song WC, Kang MK, Park HD, Kim HJ. Location of the mandibular canal and the topography of its neurovascular structures. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20:936–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kamrun N, Tetsumura A, Nomura Y, Yamaguchi S, Baba O, Nakurama S, Watanabe H, Kurabayashi T. Visualization of the superior and inferior borders of the mandibular canal: a comparative study using digital panoramic radiographs and cross-sectional computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115:550–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ulm CW, Solar P, Blahout R, Matejka M, Watzek G, Gruber H. Location of the mandibular canal within the atrophic mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;31:370–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wadu SC, Penhall B, Townsend GC. Morphological variability of the human inferior alveolar nerve. Clin Anat. 1997;10:82–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Angelopoulos C, Thomas SL, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek M. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66:2130–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oliveira Santos C, Cappelozza ALÁ, Dezzoti MSG, Fischer CM, Poleti ML, Rubira bullen IRF. Visibility of the mandibular canal on CBCT cross-sectional images. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011;19:240–3.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lofthag-Hansen S, Gröndahl K, Ekestubbe A. Cone-beam CT for preoperative implant planning in the posterior mandible: visibility of anatomic landmarks. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009;11:246–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, Van Steenberghe D, Sanderink G, Quirynen M. Appearance of the mandibular incisive canal on panoramic radiographs. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26:329–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yosue T, Brooks SL. The appearance of mental foramina on panoramic and periapical radiographs. II. Experimental evaluation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1989;68:488–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sonick M, Abrahams J, Faiella RA. A comparison of the accuracy of periapical, panoramic, and computerized tomographic radiographs in locating the mandibular canal. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994;9:455–60.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mraiwa N, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. Clinical assessment and surgical implications of anatomic challenges in the anterior mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5:219–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Makris N, Stamatakis H, Syriopoulos K, Tsiklakis K, van der Stelt PF. Evaluation of the visibility and the course of the mandibular incisive canal and the lingual foramen using cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;(7):766–71.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Romanos GE, Papadimitriou DE, Royer K, Stefanova-Stephens N, Salwan R, Malmström H, Caton JG. The presence of the mandibular incisive canal: a panoramic radiographic examination. Implant Dent. 2012;21:202–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, vanSteenberghe D, Gijbels F, Quirynen M. Appearance, location, course, and morphology of the mandibular incisive canal: an assessment on spiral CT scan. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31:322–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tepper G, Hofschneider UB, Gahleitner A, Ulm C. Computed tomographic diagnosis and localization of bone canals in the mandibular interforaminal region for prevention of bleeding complications during implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:68–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kalpidis CD, Setayesh RM. Hemorrhaging associated with endosseous implant placement in the anterior mandible: a review of the literature. J Periodontol. 2004;75:631–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Watanabe H, Mohammad Abdul M, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol. 1991;62:2–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hao Y, Zhao W, Wang Y, Yu J, Zou D. Assessments of jaw bone density at implant sites using 3D cone-beam computed tomography. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18:1398–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013b;26:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 199–209.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jemt T, Book K, Linden B, Urde G. Failures and complications in 92 consecutively inserted overdentures supported by Branemark implants in severely resorbed edentulous maxillae: a study from prosthetic treatment to first annual check-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;7:162–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tolstunov L. Implant zones of the jaws: implant location and related success rate. J Oral Implantol. 2007;33:211–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy EA. Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2008;8(32)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E. Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:503–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:558–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for pre-operative implant planning assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:1438–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:873–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at an implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013a;42:79884780.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of DentistryUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations