Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Detection of peri-implant bone defects using cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography with parallel and oblique projection

  • Saberi, Bardia Vadiati (Dental Sciences Research Center, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Khosravifard, Negar (Dental Sciences Research Center, Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ghandari, Farnaz (Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Hadinezhad, Arash (Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2019.08.16
  • Accepted : 2019.09.18
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with that of parallel(PPA) and oblique projected periapical(OPA) radiography for the detection of different types of peri-implant bone defects. Materials and Methods: Forty implants inserted into bovine rib blocks were used. Thirty had standardized bone defects(10 each of angular, fenestration, and dehiscence defects), and 10 were defect-free controls. CBCT, PPA, and OPA images of the samples were acquired. The images were evaluated twice by each of 2 blinded observers regarding the presence or absence and the type of the defects. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were determined for each radiographic technique. The 3 modalities were compared using the Fisher exact and chi-square tests, with P<0.05 considered as statistical significance. Results: High inter-examiner reliability was observed for the 3 techniques. Angular defects were detected with high sensitivity and specificity by all 3 modalities. CBCT and OPA showed similar AUC and sensitivity in the detection of fenestration defects. In the identification of dehiscence defects, CBCT showed the highest sensitivity, followed by OPA and PPA, respectively. CBCT and OPA had a significantly greater ability than PPA to detect fenestration and dehiscence defects(P<0.05). Conclusion: The application of OPA radiography in addition to routine PPA imaging as a radiographic follow-up method for dental implantation greatly enhances the visualization of fenestration and dehiscence defects. CBCT properly depicted all defect types studied, but it involves a relatively high dose of radiation and cost.

Keywords

References

  1. Ding Q, Zhang L, Geraets W, Wu W, Zhou Y, Wismeijer D, et al. Association between peri-implant bone morphology and marginal bone loss: a retrospective study on implant-supported mandibular overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32: 147-55. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4922
  2. Kamburoglu K, Murat S, Kilic C, Yuksel S, Avsever H, Farman A, et al. Accuracy of CBCT images in the assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects: effect of field of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20130332. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130332
  3. Dave M, Davies J, Wilson R, Palmer R. A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri-implant bone defects. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 24: 671-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02473.x
  4. Bagis N, Kolsuz ME, Kursun S, Orhan K. Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of periodontal defects: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2015; 15: 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0046-2
  5. Bohner LO, Mukai E, Oderich E, Porporatti AL, Pacheco-Pereira C, Tortamano P, et al. Comparative analysis of imaging techniques for diagnostic accuracy of peri-implant bone defects: a meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 124: 432-40.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2017.06.119
  6. Hilgenfeld T, Juerchott A, Deisenhofer UK, Krisam J, Rammelsberg P, Heiland S, et al. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography, dental magnetic resonance imaging, and intraoral radiography for detecting peri-implant bone defects at single zirconia implants - an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 922-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13348
  7. Saberi BV, Khosravifard N, Mohtavipour T, Khaksari F, Abbasi S, Shahmalakpoor A. Entrance skin dose of the thyroid gland area following exposure with different protocols of two panoramic and cone-beam computed tomography devices. J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2019; 7: 6-11. https://doi.org/10.4103/jomr.jomr_4_19
  8. Khojastepour L, Haghnegahdar A, Khosravifard N. Role of sinonasal anatomic variations in the development of maxillary sinusitis: a cone beam CT analysis. Open Dent J 2017; 11: 367-74. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601711010367
  9. de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Peyneau PD, Ramirez-Sotelo LR, Vasconcelos Kde F, Campos PS, Haiter-Neto F. Efficacy of a cone beam computed tomography metal artifact reduction algorithm for the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121: 550-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2016.01.013
  10. de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Vasconcelos Kde F, Neves FS, Melo SL, Campos PS, Haiter-Neto F. Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence with the use of two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of a cone-beam computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 115: 121-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.10.003
  11. Liedke GS, Spin-Neto R, da Silveira HE, Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A. Factors affecting the possibility to detect buccal bone condition around dental implants using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 1082-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12921
  12. Mikolajczak T, Wilk G. The diagnostic value of oblique technique for periapical radiography and its usefulness in endodontic treatment. Ann Acad Med Stetin 2008; 54: 94-8.
  13. Pinheiro LR, Scarfe WC, Augusto de Oliveira Sales M, Gaia BF, Cortes AR, Cavalcanti MG. Effect of cone-beam computed tomography field of view and acquisition frame on the detection of chemically simulated peri-implant bone loss in vitro. J Periodontol 2015; 86: 1159-65. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2015.150223
  14. Salvi GE, Cosgarea R, Sculean A. Prevalence and mechanisms of peri-implant diseases. J Dent Res 2017; 96: 31-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516667484
  15. Khoshkam V, Chan HL, Lin GH, MacEachern MP, Monje A, Suarez F, et al. Reconstructive procedures for treating peri-implantitis: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2013; 92 (12 Suppl): 131s-8s. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513509279
  16. Silveira-Neto N, Flores ME, De Carli JP, Costa MD, Matos FS, Paranhos LR, et al. Peri-implant assessment via cone beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography: an ex vivo study. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2017; 72: 708-13. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2017(11)10
  17. Ritter L, Elger MC, Rothamel D, Fienitz T, Zinser M, Schwarz F, et al. Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20130088. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130088
  18. Schwarz F, Sahm N, Schwarz K, Becker J. Impact of defect configuration on the clinical outcome following surgical regenerative therapy of peri-impantitis. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 449-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01540.x
  19. Mengel R, Kruse B, Flores-de-Jacoby L. Digital volume tomography in the diagnosis of peri-implant defects: an in vitro study on native pig mandibles. J Periodontol 2006; 77: 1234-41. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2006.050424
  20. Sirin Y, Horasan S, Yaman D, Basegmez C, Tanyel C, Aral A, et al. Detection of crestal radiolucencies around dental implants: an in vitro experimental study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70: 1540-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.02.024
  21. Kuhl S, Zurcher S, Zitzmann NU, Filippi A, Payer M, Dagassan-Berndt D. Detection of peri-implant bone defects with different radiographic techniques - a human cadaver study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 529-34.
  22. Eskandarloo A, Saati S, Ardakani MP, Jamalpour M, Gholi Mezerji NM, Akheshteh V. Diagnostic accuracy of three cone beam computed tomography systems and periapical radiography for detection of fenestration around dental implants. Contemp Clin Dent 2018; 9: 367-81.

Cited by

  1. Attitude in Radiographic Post-Operative Assessment of Dental Implants among Italian Dentists: A Cross-Sectional Survey vol.9, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9050234
  2. Contributions to the study of common artifacts and errors in conventional and three-dimensional radio-imaging used in the evaluation of odontal, endodontic and periodontal pathology. vol.3, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.2478/asmj-2020-0009
  3. Diagnostic accuracy of imaging examinations for peri-implant bone defects around titanium and zirconium dioxide implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.51, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20210120
  4. Fractal analysis of the trabecular bone pattern in the presence/absence of metal artifact-producing objects: Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography with panoramic and periapical radiography vol.50, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200559