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
  • [21] A comparative analysis of periapical status by using cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiography
    Alsaikhan, L. S.
    Algarni, R. A.
    Alzahrani, M. A.
    Gufran, K.
    Alqahtani, A. M.
    Altammami, M.
    Mansy, I.
    EUROPEAN REVIEW FOR MEDICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2022, 26 (23) : 8816 - 8822
  • [22] Radiologic assessment of mandibular third molars: an ex vivo comparative study of panoramic radiography, extraoral bitewing radiography, and cone beam computed tomography
    Freire, Bernardo Barbosa
    Leandro Nascimento, Eduarda Helena
    Vasconcelos, Karla de Faria
    Freitas, Deborah Queiroz
    Haiter-Neto, Francisco
    ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY, 2019, 128 (02): : 166 - 175
  • [23] Comparing the In Vivo Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Periapical Radiography with Cone-beam Computed Tomography for the Detection of Vertical Root Fracture
    Chavda, Rajesh
    Mannocci, Francesco
    Andiappan, Manoharan
    Patel, Shanon
    JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2014, 40 (10) : 1524 - 1529
  • [24] Accuracy of digital periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in detecting external root resorption
    Creanga, Adriana Gabriela
    Geha, Hassem
    Sankar, Vidya
    Teixeira, Fabricio B.
    McMahan, Clyde Alex
    Noujeim, Marcel
    IMAGING SCIENCE IN DENTISTRY, 2015, 45 (03) : 153 - 158
  • [25] Accuracy of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Radiography in Detecting Small Periapical Lesions
    Tsai, Patrick
    Torabinejad, Mahmoud
    Rice, Dwight
    Azevedo, Bruno
    JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2012, 38 (07) : 965 - 970
  • [26] Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of conventional and digital periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and cone-beam computed tomography in the assessment of alveolar bone loss
    Takeshita, Wilton Mitsunari
    Iwaki, Lilian Cristina Vessoni
    Da Silva, Mariliani Chicarelli
    Tonin, Renata Hernandes
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL DENTISTRY, 2014, 5 (03) : 318 - 323
  • [27] A comparative study of cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography in detecting mandibular molars root perforations
    Haghanifar, Sina
    Moudi, Ehsan
    Mesgarani, Abbas
    Bijani, Ali
    Abbaszadeh, Naghi
    IMAGING SCIENCE IN DENTISTRY, 2014, 44 (02) : 115 - 119
  • [28] Efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography with modified gray-scale range versus digital periapical radiography for the assessment of bone–implant interface gaps
    Zahra Dalili Kajan
    Sara Abbasi
    Negar Khosravifard
    Ali Khalighi Sigaroudi
    Safa Motevasseli
    Oral Radiology, 2022, 38 : 80 - 88
  • [29] Misfit detection in implant-supported prostheses of different compositions by periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study
    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
  • [30] Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiography in the diagnosis of root resorption
    Lima, T. F.
    Gamba, T. O.
    Zaia, A. A.
    Soares, A. J.
    AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, 2016, 61 (04) : 425 - 431