as ridge mapping can give idea about Bucco-linual width not giving by panorama
yes ridge mapping and panorama is good enough for implant placement in posterior region
Resorption patterns of buccal-crestal area in posterior make it difficult to locate appropriate place to put implant. So that I always use CBCT to measure the width and find out exact locations. In addition, if we have to do bone graft, there would be a lot of things to be considered. So in my personal opinion, panorama itself is not enough in many cases.
Yes, it is enough provided that you insert radiooaque objects of known dimensions; metal bearings for example, in a properly stabilized radiographic stent and in properly determined locations.
Panorama/OPG is a 2 dimensional view whereas with CBCT, a 3D Reconstruction is always possible and exact measurements narrowing to a millimeter is possible.Vital structure morbidity can be best avoided with the use of CBCT.
Yes. It is a good estimate of your future implant insertion. But having a CBCT could benefit and confirm the true positioning and future success
If 2D imaging modality shows sufficient bone height and clinical examination reveals adequate bone width then no further radiographic examination is necessary for implant surgery.1 The alveolar bone width can be evaluated by ridge-mapping2 or by palpation of the edentulous process3 but may be overestimated on CBCT images.4 The ridge width can also be verified during implant surgery2,3 and, if minor differences in width are identified, another implant diameter can be selected.3
1. Harris D, Horner K, Grondahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 23: 1243-1253.
2. Chen LC, Lundgren T, Hallström H, Cherel F. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 401-405.
3. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 490-497.
4. Gerlach NL, Ghaeminia H, Bronkhorst EM, Berge SJ, Meijer GJ, Maal TJ. Accuracy of assessing the mandibular canal on cone-beam computed tomography: a validation study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 72: 666-671.