medigraphic.com
ISSN 0001-0944 (Impreso)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

2012, Número 3

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev ADM 2012; 69 (3)


Utilización de imagenología bidimensional y tridimensional con fines Odontológicos

Afrashtehfar KI

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 32
Paginas: 114-119
Archivo PDF: 114.18 Kb.


RESUMEN

Las radiografías tradicionales bidimensionales se han utilizadocomúnmente en todas las áreas de la odontología. Con la llegada de la imagenología tridimensional (3D) como alternativa, se han explotado una serie de posibilidades en el área de la investigación y las especialidades odontológicas, principalmente en Cirugía Oral y Máxilofacial, Periodoncia, Prostodoncia (Implantología), así como también en Ortodoncia y Endodoncia. Este estudio pretende describir y comparar ambos sistemas radiológicos. Se concluyó que la imagen 3D es superior por su precisión, sin embargo su aún alto costo evita que se adopte como norma.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Ganz SD. Defining New Paradigms for Assessment of Implant Receptor Sites. The Use of CT/CBCT and Interactive Virtual Treatment Planning for Congenitally Missing Lateral Incisors.CompendContinEduc Dent. 2008; 29(5):256-67.

  2. Samawi SS, Burke PH. Angular distortion in the orthopantomogram.Br J Orthod. 1984;11(2):100-7.

  3. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—An increasing source of radiation exposure. N Eng J Med 2007;357:2277–84.

  4. Tachibana H, Matsumoto K. Applicability of X-ray computerized tomography in endodontics. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:16–20.

  5. Chenin DL. 3D cephalometrics: the new norm.AlphaOmegan. 2010;103(2):51-6.

  6. Klein M, Abrams M.Computer-guided surgery utilizing a computer-milled surgical template.PractProcedAesthet Dent. 2001;13(2):165-9.

  7. Chung RR, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C, Heo G, Carey JP, Major PW. A comparative analysis of angular cephalometric values between CBCT generated lateral cephalograms versus digitized conventional lateral cephalograms. Int Orthod.2009;7(4):308-21.

  8. Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F, Hartsfield JK, Roberts WE, Ofner S. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and threedimensional cone beam computed tomog raphy in vivo.DentomaxillofacRadiol. 2009;38(5):262-73.

  9. Nalçaci R, Oztürk F, Sökücü O. A comparison of two-dimensional radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography in angular cephalometricmeasurements.Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2010;39(2):100-6.

  10. Incrapera AK, Kau CH, English JD, McGrory K, Sarver DM. Soft tissue images from cephalograms compared with those from a 3D surface acquisition system. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(1):58-64.

  11. Olszewski R, Tanesy O, Cosnard G, Zech F, Reychler H. Reproducibility of osseous landmarks used for computed tomography based three-dimensional cephalometric analyses. J CraniomaxillofacSurg. 2010;38(3):214-21

  12. Faure J, Oueiss A, Marchal-Sixou C, Braga J, Treil J. Threedimensional cephalometry: applications in clinical practice and research.Orthod Fr. 2008;79(1):13-30.

  13. Moshiri M, Scarfe WC, Hilgers ML, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography.Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop. 2007;132(4):550-60.

  14. Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G. Accuracy of threedimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(2):129-34.

  15. Hassan B, Metska ME, Ozok AR, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Detection of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth by a cone beam computed tomography scan. J Endod 2009;35(5):719-22.

  16. Hassan B, Metska ME, Ozok AR, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Comparison of five Cone Beam Computed Tomography systems for detecting vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod.2010;36(1):126-9.

  17. Bruntz LQ, Palomo JM, Baden S, Hans MG. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs.Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop. 2006;130(3):340-8.

  18. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, ChangHF.The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(2):155-61.

  19. Peñarrocha M, Boronat A, Carrillo C, Albalat S. Computer-guided implant placement in a patient with severe atrophy.J Oral Implantol. 2008;34(4):203-7.

  20. Shakibaie-M B. Socket and ridge preservation from the threed imensional perspective–Aclinical study– . ZeitschriftfürZahnärztlicheImplantologie 2009:4; 369–77

  21. Bornstein MM, Lauber R, Sendi P, von Arx T. Comparison of periapical radiography and limited cone-beam computed tomography in mandibular molars for analysis of anatomical landmarks before apical surgery. J Endod 2011;37(2):151-7.

  22. Garcia de Paula-Silva FW, Hassan B, Bezerra da Silva LA, Leonardo MR, Wu M. Outcome of root canal treatment in dogs determined by periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Endod 2009;35(5):723-6.

  23. Sakabe R, Sakabe J, Kuroki Y, Nakajima I, Kijima N, Honda K. Evaluation of temporomandibular disorders in children using limited cone-beam computed tomography: a case report. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2006;31(1):14-6.

  24. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GRJ. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38(6):609-25.

  25. Loubele M, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, White SC, Suetens P. Comparative study of image quality for MSCT and CBCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial radiology applications. RadiatProtDosimetry. 2008;129(1-3):222-6.

  26. 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. DentomaxillofacRadiol. 2008;37(6):309-18.

  27. Walker L, Enciso R, Mah J. Three-dimensional localization of maxillary canines with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop.2005;128(4):418-423.

  28. Korbmacher H, Kahl-Nieke B, Schöllchen M, Heiland M. Value of two cone-beam computed tomography systems from an orthodontic point of view. J OrofacOrthop. 2007;68(4):278-289.

  29. van der Stelt PF. Experimentally produced bone lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985;59:306–12.

  30. Huumonen S, Ørstavik D. Radioological aspects of apical periodontitis. Endod Topic 2002;1:3–25.

  31. Stabholz A, Friedman S, Tamse A. Endodontic failures and retreatment. En: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds. Pathways of the pulp. 6th ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1994:692–3.

  32. Ricucci D, Bergenholtz G. Bacterial status in root-filled teeth exposed to the oral environment by loss of restoration and fracture or caries—a histobacteriological study of treated cases. Int Endod J 2003;36:787–802.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com