Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic accuracy of imaging examinations for peri-implant bone defects around titanium and zirconium dioxide implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Received : 2021.05.13
  • Accepted : 2021.09.24
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging examinations for the detection of peri-implant bone defects and compared the diagnostic accuracy between titanium (Ti) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) implants. Materials and Methods: Six online databases were searched, and studies were selected based on eligibility criteria. The studies included in the systematic review underwent bias and applicability assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool and a random-effect meta-analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were constructed to compare the effect of methodological differences in relation to the variables of each group. Results: The search strategy yielded 719 articles. Titles and abstracts were read and 61 studies were selected for full-text reading. Among them, 24 studies were included in this systematic review. Most included studies had a low risk of bias (QUADAS-2). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) presented sufficient data for quantitative analysis in ZrO2 and Ti implants. The meta-analysis revealed high levels of inconsistency in the latter group. Regarding sROC curves, the area under the curve (AUC) was larger for the overall Ti group (AUC=0.79) than for the overall ZrO2 group (AUC=0.69), but without a statistically significant difference between them. In Ti implants, the AUCs for dehiscence defects(0.73) and fenestration defects(0.87) showed a statistically significant difference. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of CBCT imaging in the assessment of peri-implant bone defects was similar between Ti and ZrO2 implants, and fenestration was more accurately diagnosed than dehiscence in Ti implants.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Jessica Conti Reus, MSc, for the initial evaluation of our statistical analysis for data accuracy.

References

  1. Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Kekovic V, Goker F, Tumedei M, Wang HL. A systematic review of survival rates of osseointegrated implants in fully and partially edentulous patients following immediate loading. J Clin Med 2019; 8: 2142. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8122142
  2. Koldsland OC, Scheie AA, Aass AM. Prevalence of peri-implantitis related to severity of the disease with different degrees of bone loss. J Periodontol 2010; 81: 231-8. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090269
  3. Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 119-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x
  4. Schwarz F, Derks J, Monje A, Wang HL. Peri-implantitis. J Clin Periodontol 2018; 45 Suppl 20: S246-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12954
  5. Mombelli A, Muller N, Cionca N. The epidemiology of periimplantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 Suppl 20: 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02541.x
  6. Academy report. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a current understanding of their diagnoses and clinical implications. J Periodontol 2013; 84: 436-43. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2013.134001
  7. Bender P, Salvi G, Buser D, Sculean A, Bornstein M. Correlation of three-dimensional radiologic data with subsequent treatment approach in patients with peri-implantitis: a retrospective analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017; 37: 481-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.2844
  8. Garcia-Garcia M, Mir-Mari J, Benic GI, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellon E. Accuracy of periapical radiography in assessing bone level in implants affected by peri-implantitis: a crosssectional study. J Clin Periodontol 2016; 43: 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12491
  9. Rios HF, Borgnakke WS, Benavides E. The use of cone-beam computed tomography in management of patients requiring den-tal implants: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol 2017; 88: 946-59. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2017.160548
  10. 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
  11. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-73. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039
  12. Kurt MH, Bagis N, Evli C, Atakan C, Orhan K. Comparison of the different voxel sizes in the estimation of peri-implant fenestration defects using cone beam computed tomography: an ex vivo study. Int J Implant Dent 2020; 6: 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00254-2
  13. Steiger-Ronay V, Krcmaric Z, Schmidlin PR, Sahrmann P, Wiedemeier DB, Benic GI. Assessment of peri-implant defects at titanium and zirconium dioxide implants by means of periapical radiographs and cone beam computed tomography: an in-vitro examination. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 1195-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13383
  14. Vasconcelos TV, Leandro Nascimento EH, Bechara BB, Freitas DQ, Noujeim M. Influence of cone beam computed tomography settings on implant artifact production: zirconia and titanium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34: 1114-20. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7129
  15. Klinke T, Daboul A, Maron J, Gredes T, Puls R, Jaghsi A, et al. Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography caused by dental materials. Plos One 2012; 7: e31766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031766
  16. Smeets R, Schollchen M, Gauer T, Aarabi G, Assaf AT, Rendenbach C, et al. Artefacts in multimodal imaging of titanium, zirconium and binary titanium-zirconium alloy dental implants: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46: 20160267. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160267
  17. Sancho-Puchades M, Hammerle CH, Benic GI. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconium dioxide implants in cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 1222-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12438
  18. Demirturk Kocasarac H, Ustaoglu G, Bayrak S, Katkar R, Geha H, Deahl ST 2nd, et al. Evaluation of artifacts generated by titanium, zirconium, and titanium-zirconium alloy dental implants on MRI, CT, and CBCT images: a phantom study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019; 127: 535-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2019.01.074
  19. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 889-97. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008
  20. Sharifabadi AD, McInnes MD, Bossuyt PM. PRISMA-DTA: an extension of PRISMA for reporting of diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. Clin Chem 2018; 64: 985-6. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2018.289637
  21. Sewerin IP. Comparison of radiographic image characteristics of Branemark and IMZ implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991; 2: 151-6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020308.x
  22. Ludlow JB, Gates W, Nason R Jr. Radiographic evaluation of implant-obscured bone. Comparison of digitally subtracted tomographic and periapical techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 80: 351-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(05)80394-4
  23. Bayrak S, Orhan K, Kursun Cakmak ES, Gorurgoz C, Odabasi O, Yilmaz D, et al. Evaluation of a metal artifact reduction algorithm and an optimization filter in the estimation of peri-implant dehiscence defects by using cone beam computed tomography: an in-vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2020; 130: 209-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2020.02.005
  24. 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
  25. de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Alencar PN, Rovaris K, Campos PS, Haiter-Neto F. Enhancement cone beam computed tomography filters improve in vitro periimplant dehiscence detection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 116: 633-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.06.029
  26. 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
  27. Schwindling FS, Hilgenfeld T, Weber D, Kosinski MA, Rammelsberg P, Tasaka A. In vitro diagnostic accuracy of low-dose CBCT for evaluation of peri-implant bone lesions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30: 1200-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13533
  28. Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Eren H, Yuksel S, Paksoy CS. Assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant and periodontal defects using a cone beam CT system with and without the application of metal artefact reduction mode. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20130176. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130176
  29. Kavadella A, Karayiannis A, Nicopoulou-Karayianni K. Detectability of experimental peri-implant cancellous bone lesions using conventional and direct digital radiography. Aust Dent J. 2006; 51: 180-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00424.x
  30. Kim JH, Abdala-Junior R, Munhoz L, Cortes AR, Watanabe PC, Costa C, et al. Comparison between different cone-beam computed tomography devices in the detection of mechanically simulated peri-implant bone defects. Imaging Sci Dent 2020; 50: 133-9. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2020.50.2.133
  31. Kuhl S, Zurcher S, Zitzmann NU, Filippi A, Payer M, DagassanBerndt D. Detection of peri-implant bone defects with different radiographic techniques - a human cadaver study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 529-34.
  32. Naje AR, Drobie BF, Falah A. A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in the detection of mechanical created peri-implant bone defects. J Res Med Dent Sci 2019; 7: 222-5.
  33. Pelekos G, Tse JM, Ho D, Tonetti MS. Defect morphology, bone thickness, exposure settings and examiner experience affect the diagnostic accuracy of standardized digital periapical radiographic images but not of cone beam computed tomography in the detection of peri-implant osseous defects: an in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46: 1294-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13200
  34. Pinheiro LR, Gaia BF, Oliveira de Sales MA, Umetsubo OS, Santos Junior O, Cavalcanti MG. Effect of field of view in the detection of chemically created peri-implant bone defects in bovine ribs using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 120: 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.04.006
  35. Vadiati Saberi B, Khosravifard N, Ghandari F, Hadinezhad A. Detection of peri-implant bone defects using cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography with parallel and oblique projection. Imaging Sci Dent 2019; 49: 265-72. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2019.49.4.265
  36. Schriber M, Yeung AW, Suter VG, Buser D, Leung YY, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography artefacts around dental implants with different materials influencing the detection of peri-implant bone defects. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31: 595-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13596
  37. Sewerin IP, Gotfredsen K, Stoltze K. Accuracy of radiographic diagnosis of peri-implant radiolucencies - an in vitro experiment. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8: 299-304. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080408.x
  38. 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
  39. Vidor MM, Liedke GS, Vizzotto MB, da Silveira HL, da Silveira PF, Araujo CW, et al. Imaging evaluating of the implant/bone interface - an in vitro radiographic study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46: 20160296. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160296
  40. Vidor MM, Liedke GS, Fontana MP, da Silveira HL, Arus NA, Lemos A, et al. Is cone beam computed tomography accurate for postoperative evaluation of implants? An in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 124: 500-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2017.07.008
  41. 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 2013; 24: 671-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02473.x
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
  45. Pieralli S, Kohal RJ, Lopez Hernandez E, Doerken S, Spies BC. Osseointegration of zirconia dental implants in animal investigations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2018; 34: 171-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.008
  46. Sanz-Martin I, Sanz-Sanchez I, Carrillo de Albornoz A, Figuero E, Sanz M. Effects of modified abutment characteristics on peri-implant soft tissue health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 118-29.
  47. Bohner LO, Mukai E, Oderich E, Porporatti AL, Pacheco-Pereira C, Tortamano P, De Luca Canto G. 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
  48. Pelekos G, Acharya A, Tonetti MS, Bornstein MM. Diagnostic performance of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri-implant bone loss: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 443-64.
  49. Monje A, Pons R, Insua A, Nart J, Wang HL, Schwarz F. Morphology and severity of peri-implantitis bone defects. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 635-43.
  50. Yeung AW, Azevedo B, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Patient motion image artifacts can be minimized and re-exposure avoided by selective removal of a sequence of basis images from cone beam computed tomography data sets: a case series. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2020; 129: e212-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2019.07.003
  51. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC, et al. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113: 817-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005