Objectives: To compare 2D CT alone with 2D + 3D reconstruction for pre-oper
ative planning of implant placement.
Methods: Spiral CT scans of 33 consecutive patients were used for both refo
rmatted 2D and 3D computer-assisted planning. The number, site and size of
implants and the occurrence of anatomical complications during planning and
implant placement were statistically compared using the percentage agreeme
nt and the Kendall's correlation coefficients (tau). Although planning was
performed in 33 patients, implants were only placed in 21 patients. In 11 p
atients surgery was based on;2D + 3D imaging and in ten patients on 2D plan
ning.
Results: Agreement between planning and placement of implants was highly si
gnificant for the implant sites selected. For 2D based planning and placeme
nt, agreement reached 68% ( tau = 0.94). For 2D + 3D based planning and pla
cement, agreement attained 73% (tau = 0.89). For planning and placement of
implant size based on 2D images, agreement was 31% and not significant (tau
=0.23). When based on 2D + 3D images, agreement for implant size was 44% (t
au = 0.5), Agreement was not significant for anatomical complications: 69%
for 2D planning and 71% for 2D + 3D planning (tau = 0.24 for 2D and tau = 0
.21 for 2D + 3D).
Conclusions: The 3D planning system is a reliable tool for pre-operative as
sessment of implant placement. Both 2D and 2D + 3D planning have a good pre
dictability for the number and site of the implants but less so for anatomi
cal complications. However, the 2D+3D planning provides a better pre-operat
ive assessment of implant size.