A Comparative Measurement of Edentulous Bone Between Cone Beam Computed Tomography vs. Dentascan CT in Implant Patients: In Vivo Study

Jump To References Section


  • Professor and Head, Department of Prosthodontics, IDS Dental College and Research Centre, Bareilly – 243006, Uttar Pradesh ,IN
  • Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Hazaribagh College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Hazaribagh – 825301, Jharkhand ,IN
  • 3rd Year Post Graduate Student, IDS Dental College and Research Centre, Bareilly – 243006, Uttar Pradesh ,IN
  • 3rd Year Post Graduate Student, IDS Dental College and Research Centre, Bareilly – 243006, Uttar Pradesh ,IN




Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), Dentascan CT, Mesiodistal and Sagital Buccolingual Measurement and Pre-maxilla


Aim: To compare the linear and mesiodistal measurement of alveolar edentulous bone between CBCT and Dentascan CT. Vivo-comparative study. Materials and Methods: 30 implant patients were selected among the partially edentulous ridge in pre-maxillary region. After using a radiographic stent splint (3×3 mm square), a CBCT and Dentascan was scanned. Linear and mesiodistal radiographic evaluations were performed from a built-in software tool. The student unpaired t-test was used for finding significant difference in between and within group. P-value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: Linear Radiographic Evaluation by Dentascan was 20.75 ± 2.14 and by CBCT was 20.86 ± 2.18, Mesiodistal Radiographic Evaluation by Dentascan was 6.71 ± 0.70 and by CBCT was 6.79 ± 0.70. Conclusion: The linear assessment of the implant site taken on Dentascan was almost similar to that recorded on CBCT and P-value is not significant (>0.05).



How to Cite

Singhal, M. K., Baidya, S. K., Khurana, A., & Kouser, M. (2022). A Comparative Measurement of Edentulous Bone Between Cone Beam Computed Tomography vs. Dentascan CT in Implant Patients: In Vivo Study. Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section), 36(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.18311/jpfa/2022/27714



Original Research Article



Suvarna PV, Jaju PP, Subramaniam AV, Jain S. Density evaluation of pre-implant sites by dentascan software. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ. 2010; 2:4–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/22310754.89983

Singhal MK, Vaish S, Agarwal K, Mendiratta M, Singh AN, Gangwar S. A CT Scan and the panoramic X-Ray in pre-operative implant assessment: A vivo study. JPFA (India section). 2020; 15(1):132–43.

Sahai S. Recent advances in imaging technologies in implant dentistry. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ. 2015; 7:19–26. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0754.172927

Saavedra-Abril JA, Balhen-Martin C, Zaragoza-Velasco K, Kimura-Hayama ET, Saavedra S, Stoopen ME. Dental multisection CT for the placement of oral implants: Technique and applications. Radiographics. 2010; 30(7):1975–91. PMid: 21057130. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.307105026

Kapadia Y, Jain V. Radiopacity of dental materials used for imaging guides in implant dentistry. EC Dental Science. 2018; 17:6–8.

Chandel S, Singh N, Agrawal A, Singh H, Nandakumar H. Feasibility of Dentascan in planning of implant surgery in posterior maxilla and mandible. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2017; 7:188–92. PMid: 29123998 PMCid: PMC5670300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.03.001

Marakala VR, Allu S, Pittala VC. Determination of the accuracy of imaging methods to evaluate bone in maxilla for implant placement - An invitro study. J Oral Med Oral Surg Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018; 4(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.18231/2395-6194.2018.0001

Abrahams JJCT. Assessment of dental implant planning. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 1992; 4:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1042-3699(20)30568-9

Sutaria FB, Shah DN, Chauhan CJ, Solanki JS, Bhatti KA. Comparative evaluation of various methods of assessing residual alveolar ridge width prior to dental implant placement: An in vivo study. J Dent Implant. 2019; 9:12–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jdi.jdi_19_17

Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2018; 29:393–415. PMid: 30328204. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13142m

Ganguly R, Ramesh A, Pagni S. The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in conebeam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016; 46:93–101. PMid: 27358816 PMCid: PMC4925656. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.93

Visconti MA, Verner FS, Assis NM, Devito KL. Influence of maxillomandibular positioning in cone beam computed tomography for implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 42:880–6. PMid: 23566433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.03.001

Shenoy VK. Single tooth implants: Pretreatment considerations and pretreatment evaluation. J Interdiscip Dentistry. 2012; 2(3):149–57. https://doi.org/10.4103/22295194.113239

Singhal MK, Billing RK, Srivastava N, Khan Z. A 2D panoramic surgical stent imaging: Complete arch

mandibular implant fixed prosthesis along with bar supported maxillary over denture. Contemp Clin Dent.

; 8:332–6. PMid: 28839424 PMCid: PMC5551343. https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_472_17

Loubele M, Van Assche N, Carpentier K, Maes F, Jacobs R, Steenberghe VD et al. Comparative localized linear accuracy of small-field cone-beam CT and multislice CT for alveolar bone measurements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 105:512–8. PMid: 17900939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.004

Lechuga L, Weidlich GA. Cone Beam CT vs. Fan Beam CT: A comparison of image quality and dose delivered between two differing CT imaging modalities. Cureus. 2016; 8(9):e778.