File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Cone beam computed tomography artefacts around dental implants with different materials influencing the detection of peri‐implant bone defects

TitleCone beam computed tomography artefacts around dental implants with different materials influencing the detection of peri‐implant bone defects
Authors
Keywordsclinical assessment
CT imaging
diagnosis
imaging
radiology
Issue Date2020
PublisherWiley for European Association for Osseointegration. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020, v. 31 n. 7, p. 595-606 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the diagnosis of peri‐implant bone defects of titanium (Ti), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) or titanium–zirconium (Ti–Zr) alloy implants. Materials and Methods: Ti, Ti–Zr or ZrO2 implants with two diameters (3.3 mm, 4.1 mm) and one length (10 mm) were inserted in the angle of the mandible of six fresh defrosted pig jaws. Out of the 12 implants inserted, 6 served in the test group with standardized buccal peri‐implant bone defects, whereas 6 served as control without bone defects. CBCTs were performed with three acquisition protocols (standard, high and low dose) using two devices. Four observers analysed CBCTs as follows: (a) presence of a peri‐implant defect; (b) presence of peri‐implant artefacts and impact on defect diagnosis; and (c) linear measurements of buccal peri‐implant defect including height and width (in mm). Results: CBCT device, CBCT settings, implant material, implant diameter and observer background did not significantly influence diagnostic accuracy. The sensitivity and specificity values were high for defect detection. ZrO2 led to a lower than average diagnostic accuracy (0.781). The linear measurements of peri‐implant defect were underestimated by <1 mm on average. The subjective impact of artefacts on defect diagnosis was significantly affected by implant material and observer background. Conclusions: CBCT showed high diagnostic accuracy for peri‐implant bone defect detection regardless of the device, imaging setting or implant material used. If CBCT is indicated to assess peri‐implant bone disease, low dose protocols could be a promising imaging modality.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/283716
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 5.021
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.407
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSchriber, M-
dc.contributor.authorYeung, AWK-
dc.contributor.authorSuter, VGA-
dc.contributor.authorBuser, D-
dc.contributor.authorLeung, YY-
dc.contributor.authorBornstein, MM-
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-03T08:23:07Z-
dc.date.available2020-07-03T08:23:07Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2020, v. 31 n. 7, p. 595-606-
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/283716-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the diagnosis of peri‐implant bone defects of titanium (Ti), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) or titanium–zirconium (Ti–Zr) alloy implants. Materials and Methods: Ti, Ti–Zr or ZrO2 implants with two diameters (3.3 mm, 4.1 mm) and one length (10 mm) were inserted in the angle of the mandible of six fresh defrosted pig jaws. Out of the 12 implants inserted, 6 served in the test group with standardized buccal peri‐implant bone defects, whereas 6 served as control without bone defects. CBCTs were performed with three acquisition protocols (standard, high and low dose) using two devices. Four observers analysed CBCTs as follows: (a) presence of a peri‐implant defect; (b) presence of peri‐implant artefacts and impact on defect diagnosis; and (c) linear measurements of buccal peri‐implant defect including height and width (in mm). Results: CBCT device, CBCT settings, implant material, implant diameter and observer background did not significantly influence diagnostic accuracy. The sensitivity and specificity values were high for defect detection. ZrO2 led to a lower than average diagnostic accuracy (0.781). The linear measurements of peri‐implant defect were underestimated by <1 mm on average. The subjective impact of artefacts on defect diagnosis was significantly affected by implant material and observer background. Conclusions: CBCT showed high diagnostic accuracy for peri‐implant bone defect detection regardless of the device, imaging setting or implant material used. If CBCT is indicated to assess peri‐implant bone disease, low dose protocols could be a promising imaging modality.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley for European Association for Osseointegration. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR-
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research-
dc.rightsThis is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article using the DOI]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.-
dc.subjectclinical assessment-
dc.subjectCT imaging-
dc.subjectdiagnosis-
dc.subjectimaging-
dc.subjectradiology-
dc.titleCone beam computed tomography artefacts around dental implants with different materials influencing the detection of peri‐implant bone defects-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailYeung, AWK: ndyeung@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLeung, YY: mleung04@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailBornstein, MM: bornst@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityYeung, AWK=rp02143-
dc.identifier.authorityLeung, YY=rp01522-
dc.identifier.authorityBornstein, MM=rp02217-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.13596-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85082045998-
dc.identifier.hkuros310774-
dc.identifier.volume31-
dc.identifier.issue7-
dc.identifier.spage595-
dc.identifier.epage606-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000544341100002-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-
dc.identifier.issnl0905-7161-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats