title: Comparing Two Diagnostic Procedures in Planning Dental Implants to Support a Mandibular Free-Ending Removable Partial Denture.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The use of a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the preoperative implant planning is increasing. A clear guideline is needed in which cases of CBCT is essential.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  In this study, two imaging modalities (panoramic radiograph and CBCT) are compared in preoperative implant planning in the severely resorbed mandible and the influence on the observers assessments.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-four consecutive patients with bilateral edentulous regions in the mandible were included. The feasibility of implant placement in the premolar and molar region was judged by three observers on basis of casts either with a panoramic radiograph or a CBCT.Cohen's kappa, sensitivity and specificity rates, odds of agreement and disagreement as well as the odds ratios (ORs, ratio between odds of agreement and disagreement) were calculated per observer and overall for all observers assuming the majorities agreement as the prevailing opinion.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Overall outcome for premolar region revealed true-positive and true-negative rates of 90% and 0%, respectively, with Cohen's kappa (κ) = -0.04. The ORs for the three observers varied between 2.6 and 158.8, with an overall OR = 76.For the molar region, overall true-positive and true-negative rates were 65% and 22% respectively, with Cohen's κ = 0.68, representing a reasonable amount of agreement. Sensitivity and specificity as well as the ORs for individual observers were fairly consistent with an overall OR = 43.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Implant placement in the resorbed posterior mandible can be well assessed with a cast in combination with a panoramic radiograph in the vast majority of the cases. Misclassification amounts to approximately 10% to 13%. In all cases of misclassification, a critical bone height, or an unclear course of the mandibular nerve or a knife edge ridge was present. In these cases, the use of a CBCT is justified.
authors.affiliation: Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Charlotte
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Jensen
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Gerry M
authors.initials: GM
authors.lastname: Raghoebar
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Henny J A
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Meijer
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Rutger
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Schepers
authors.affiliation: Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Marco S
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Cune
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001862:Bone Resorption; D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Q000379:methods; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; D003832:Denture, Partial, Removable; D006801:Humans; D008334:Mandible / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D011300:Preoperative Care; D011862:Radiography, Panoramic
keywords: cone beam CT; implants; panoramic radiograph; removable partial denture; severely resorbed posterior mandible