Can pterygoid plate asymmetry be linked to temporomandibular joint disorders?

PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate the relationship between pterygoid plate asymmetry and temporomandibular joint disorders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 60 patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) involving pain were analyzed and compared with images of 60 age- and gender-matched controls. Three observers performed linear measurements of the lateral pterygoid plates. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between measurements of the lateral pterygoid plates on the site that had pain and the contralateral site (p<0.05). The average length of the lateral pterygoid plates (LPPs) in patients with TMD was 17.01+/-3.64 mm on the right side and 16.21+/-3.51 mm on the left side, and in patients without TMD, it was 11.86+/-1.97 mm on the right side and 11.98+/-1.85 mm on the left side. Statistically significant differences in the LPP length, measured on CBCT, were found between patients with and without TMD (p<0.05). The inter-examiner reliability obtained in this study was very high for all the examiners (0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.98-0.99). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present study, CBCT lateral pterygoid plate measurements at the side with TMD were found to be significantly different from those on the side without TMD. More research is needed to explore potential etiological correlations and implications for treatment.

Preoperative implant planning considering alveolar bone grafting needs and complication prediction using panoramic versus CBCT images

PURPOSE: This study was performed to determine the efficacy of observers' prediction for the need of bone grafting and presence of perioperative complications on the basis of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic radiographic (PAN) planning as compared to the surgical outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eight partially edentulous patients with a need for implant rehabilitation were referred for preoperative imaging. Imaging consisted of PAN and CBCT images. Four observers carried out implant planning using PAN image datasets, and at least one month later, using CBCT image datasets. Based on their own planning, the observers assessed the need for bone graft augmentation as well as complication prediction. The implant length and diameter, the need for bone graft augmentation, and the occurrence of anatomical complications during planning and implant placement were statistically compared. RESULTS: In the 108 patients, 365 implants were installed. Receiver operating characteristic analyses of both PAN and CBCT preoperative planning showed that CBCT performed better than PAN-based planning with respect to the need for bone graft augmentation and perioperative complications. The sensitivity and the specificity of CBCT for implant complications were 96.5% and 90.5%, respectively, and for bone graft augmentation, they were 95.2% and 96.3%, respectively. Significant differences were found between PAN-based planning and the surgery of posterior implant lengths. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that CBCT-based preoperative implant planning enabled treatment planning with a higher degree of prediction and agreement as compared to the surgical standard. In PAN-based surgery, the prediction of implant length was poor.

Does cone-beam CT alter treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative implant planning using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images

PURPOSE: The present study was performed to compare the planning of implant placement based on panoramic radiography (PAN) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, and to study the impact of the image dataset on the treatment planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred five partially edentulous patients (77 males, 28 females, mean age: 46 years, range: 26-67 years) seeking oral implant rehabilitation were referred for presurgical imaging. Imaging consisted of PAN and CBCT imaging. Four observers planned implant treatment based on the two-dimensional (2D) image datasets and at least one month later on the three-dimensional (3D) image dataset. Apart from presurgical diagnostic and dimensional measurement tasks, the observers needed to indicate the surgical confidence levels and assess the image quality in relation to the presurgical needs. RESULTS: All observers confirmed that both imaging modalities (PAN and CBCT) gave similar values when planning implant diameter. Also, the results showed no differences between both imaging modalities for the length of implants with an anterior location. However, significant differences were found in the length of implants with a posterior location. For implant dimensions, longer lengths of the implants were planned with PAN, as confirmed by two observers. CBCT provided images with improved scores for subjective image quality and surgical confidence levels. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, there was a trend toward PAN-based preoperative planning of implant placement leading towards the use of longer implants within the posterior jaw bone.