Indications for 3-D diagnostics and navigation in dental implantology with the focus on radiation exposure: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants are a common restorative method used to replace missing teeth. Implant placement techniques guided by three-dimensional imaging and navigation are becoming more widely available. OBJECTIVE: The present review focused on the following questions: 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of 2-D versus 3-D imaging in dental implantology? 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of freehand implant placement in comparison with navigation-guided implant placement? METHODS: A systematic review was performed, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The following libraries were searched for relevant literature: PubMed, Embase, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF) Online, and the Cochrane Library. The risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SiGN) checklist. A total of 70 studies were included after screening, and the evidence from these was gathered for review. RESULTS: Three-dimensional imaging is advantageous in terms of image quality, and it provides a distortion-free evaluation of the implant site. However, it is also associated with higher costs and increased radiation exposure. Dynamic and static navigation are equal in accuracy and are both more accurate compared with the freehand method. No benefit in terms of implant survival could be demonstrated within the first 5 years for any specific method. DISCUSSION: A panoramic X-ray with a reference body often provides sufficient imaging and is the primary method for two-dimensional imaging. Cone beam computed tomography with low-dose protocol settings should be used if three-dimensional imaging is needed. Navigational support should be considered in the event of especially complex cases. CONCLUSION: The guidance technique used for implant placement should be decided on an individual basis. With the increasing availability of three-dimensional imaging, there should also be an increase in awareness of radiation exposure.

Comparison of the Visibility of Fetal Tooth Buds on 1.5 and 3 Tesla MRI.

Dental anomalies coincide with genetic disorders, and prenatal identification may contribute to a more accurate diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess whether fetal Magnet Resonance Imaging (MRI) is suitable to visualize and investigate intrauterine dental development in the upper jaw, and to compare the quality of visibility of tooth buds between 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3T images. MR images of fetuses Gestational Week (GW) 26.71 ± 4.97 from 286 pregnant women with diagnoses unrelated to dental anomalies were assessed by three raters. We compared the visibility between groups and field strengths in five gestational age groups, using chi square and Fisher's exact tests. All ten primary tooth buds were identifiable in 5.4% at GW 18-21, in 75.5% at GW 26-29, and in 90.6% at GW 34+. Before GW 30, more tooth buds were identifiable on 3T images than on 1.5T images. Statistical significance was only reached for identification of incisors (p = 0.047). Therefore, 1.5T and 3T images are viable to visualize tooth buds, particularly after GW 25, and their analysis may serve as diagnostic criterion. MRI tooth bud data might have an impact on various fields of research, such as the maldevelopment of teeth and their causes. Analyzing tooth buds as an additional diagnostic criterion is not time consuming, and could lead to an improvement of syndrome diagnosis.

Dental implants and diabetes mellitus-a systematic review.

Dental implant surgery has developed to a widely used procedure for dental rehabilitation and is a secure and predictable procedure. Local and systemic risk factors can result in higher failure rates. Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease that goes in with hyperglycemia and causes multifarious side effects. Diabetes as a relative contraindication for implant surgery is controversially discussed. Because the number of patients suffering from diabetes increases, there are more diabetic patients demanding implant procedures. We aimed to answer the PICO question "Do diabetic patients with dental implants have a higher complication rate in comparison to healthy controls?" by a systematic literature search based on the PRISMA statement. We identified 22 clinical studies and 20 publications of aggregated literature, which were quite heterogeneous concerning methods and results. We conclude that patients with poorly controlled diabetes suffer from impaired osseointegration, elevated risk of peri-implantitis, and higher level of implant failure. The influence of duration of the disease is not fully clear. The supportive administration of antibiotics and chlorhexidine seems to improve implant success. When diabetes is under well control, implant procedures are safe and predictable with a complication rate similar to that of healthy patients.