Peri-implant assessment via cone beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography: an ex vivo study

被引:6
作者
Silveira-Neto, Nicolau [1 ]
Flores, Mateus Ericson [1 ]
De Carli, Joao Paulo [1 ]
Costa, Max Doria [2 ]
Matos, Felipe de Souza [3 ]
Paranhos, Luiz Renato [4 ]
Sandini Linden, Maria Salete [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Passo Fundo, Dept Odontol, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil
[2] Univ Tiradentes, Dept Odontol, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
[3] Univ Estadual Paulista, Inst Ciencia & Tecnol, Dept Odontol Restauradora, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil
[4] Univ Fed Sergipe, Dept Odontol, Lagarto, SE, Brazil
关键词
Artifacts; Cone Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Implants; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.6061/clinics/2017(11)10
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVES: This research evaluated detail registration in peri-implant bone using two different cone beam computer tomography systems and a digital periapical radiograph. METHODS: Three different image acquisition protocols were established for each cone beam computer tomography apparatus, and three clinical situations were simulated in an ex vivo fresh pig mandible: buccal bone defect, peri-implant bone defect, and bone contact. Data were subjected to two analyses: quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative analyses involved a comparison of real specimen measures using a digital caliper in three regions of the preserved buccal bone - A, B and E (control group) - to cone beam computer tomography images obtained with different protocols (kp1, kp2, kp3, ip1, ip2, and ip3). In the qualitative analyses, the ability to register peri-implant details via tomography and digital periapical radiography was verified, as indicated by twelve evaluators. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: The quantitative assessment showed means statistically equal to those of the control group under the following conditions: buccal bone defect B and E with kp1 and ip1, peri-implant bone defect E with kp2 and kp3, and bone contact A with kp1, kp2, kp3, and ip2. Qualitatively, only bone contacts were significantly different among the assessments, and the p3 results differed from the p1 and p2 results. The other results were statistically equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: The registration of peri-implant details was influenced by the image acquisition protocol, although metal artifacts were produced in all situations. The evaluators preferred the Kodak 9000 3D cone beam computer tomography in most cases. The evaluators identified buccal bone defects better with cone beam computer tomography and identified peri-implant bone defects better with digital periapical radiography.
引用
收藏
页码:708 / 713
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   Pericervical Dentin Metrics in Mandibular First Molars Determined with Digital Periapical Radiography and Cone-beam Computed Tomography [J].
Boveda, Carlos ;
Kishen, Anil ;
Millan, Beatriz ;
Camejo, Maria, V ;
Gomez-Sosa, Jose Francisco .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2024, 50 (05) :637-643
[32]   Misfit detection in implant-supported prostheses of different compositions by periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study [J].
De-Azevedo-Vaz, Sergio Lins ;
Araujo-Siqueira, Caique ;
Carneiro, Vinicius Cavalcanti ;
Oliveira, Matheus Lima ;
Azeredo, Rogerio Albuquerque .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2021, 126 (02) :205-213
[33]   Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiography in the diagnosis of root resorption [J].
Lima, T. F. ;
Gamba, T. O. ;
Zaia, A. A. ;
Soares, A. J. .
AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, 2016, 61 (04) :425-431
[34]   The Impact of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Peri-Implant Artifacts: A Literature Review [J].
Sawicki, Pawel ;
Zawadzki, Pawel J. ;
Regulski, Piotr .
CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2022, 14 (03)
[35]   Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography, dental magnetic resonance imaging, and intraoral radiography for detecting peri-implant bone defects at single zirconia implantsAn in vitro study [J].
Hilgenfeld, Tim ;
Juerchott, Alexander ;
Deisenhofer, Ulrich Karl ;
Krisam, Johannes ;
Rammelsberg, Peter ;
Heiland, Sabine ;
Bendszus, Martin ;
Schwindling, Franz Sebastian .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2018, 29 (09) :922-930
[36]   Analysis of peri-implant bone defects by using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT): an integrative review [J].
J. A. Costa ;
J. M. Mendes ;
F. Salazar ;
J. J. Pacheco ;
P. Rompante ;
M. I. Câmara .
Oral Radiology, 2023, 39 :455-466
[37]   Diagnostic performance of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri-implant bone loss: A systematic review [J].
Pelekos, Georgios ;
Acharya, Aneesha ;
Tonetti, Maurizio S. ;
Bornstein, Michael M. .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2018, 29 (05) :443-464
[38]   Efficacy of two radiographic algorithms for detection of peri-implant bone defects on cone-beam computed tomography scans [J].
Yousefi, Faezeh ;
Heidari, Ali ;
Ehsani, Azita ;
Farhadian, Maryam ;
Ehsani, Marzieh .
BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2025, 25 (01)
[39]   Evaluation of peri-implant buccal bone by computed tomography: an experimental study [J].
Gonzalez-Martin, Oscar ;
Oteo, Carlos ;
Ortega, Ricardo ;
Alandez, Javier ;
Sanz, Mariano ;
Veltri, Mario .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2016, 27 (08) :950-955
[40]   A Comparative Investigation of Cone-beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Radiography in the Diagnosis of a Healthy Periapex [J].
Pope, Oliver ;
Sathorn, Chankhrit ;
Parashos, Peter .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2014, 40 (03) :360-365