Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Influence of kilovoltage- peak and the metal artifact reduction tool in cone-beam computed tomography on the detection of bone defects around titanium-zirconia and zirconia implants

  • Received : 2022.02.26
  • Accepted : 2022.05.24
  • Published : 2022.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the influence of kilovoltage- peak (kVp) and the metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool on the detection of buccal and lingual peri-implant dehiscence in the presence of titanium-zirconia (Ti-Zr) and zirconia (Zr) implants in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: Twenty implant sites were created in the posterior region of human mandibles, including control sites (without dehiscence) and experimental sites (with dehiscence). Individually, a Ti-Zr or Zr implant was placed in each implant site. CBCT scans were performed using a Picasso Trio device, with variation in the kVp setting (70 or 90 kVp) and whether the MAR tool was used. Three oral radiologists scored the detection of dehiscence using a 5-point scale. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated and compared by multi-way analysis of variance (α=0.05). Results: The kVp, cortical plate involved (buccal or lingual cortices), and MAR did not influence any diagnostic values (P>0.05). The material of the implant did not influence the ROC curve values(P>0.05). In contrast, the sensitivity and specificity were statistically significantly influenced by the implant material (P<0.05) with Zr implants showing higher sensitivity values and lower specificity values than Ti-Zr implants. Conclusion: The detection of peri-implant dehiscence was not influenced by kVp, use of the MAR tool, or the cortical plate. Greater sensitivity and lower specificity were shown for the detection of peri-implant dehiscence in the presence of a Zr implant.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was financed in part by the Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil(CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

References

  1. Pinheiro LR, Scarfe WC, de Oliveira Sales MA, Gaia BF, Cortes AR, Gusmao Paraiso Cavalcanti M. Effectiveness of periapical radiography versus cone beam computed tomography with different kilovoltage settings in the detection of chemically created peri-implant bone defects: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32: 741-50. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5311
  2. Busenlechner D, Furhauser R, Haas R, Watzek G, Mailath G, Pommer B. Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2014; 44: 102-8. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2014.44.3.102
  3. Hafezeqoran A, Koodaryan R. Effect of zirconia dental implant surfaces on bone integration: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Biomed Res Int 2017; 2017: 9246721.
  4. Akheshteh V, Eskandarloo A, Saati S, Jamalpour MR, Mohammad Gholi Mezerji N. Efficacy of periapical radiography and three cone-beam computed tomography systems for detection of peri-implant dehiscence defects: an in- vitro study. J Biomed Phys Eng 2020; 10: 751-60.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Lang NP, Berglundh T, Working Group 4 of Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. Periimplant diseases: where are we now? - Consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 11: 178-81.
  9. Lindhe J, Meyle J, Group D of European Workshop on Periodontology. Peri-implant diseases: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 282-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01283.x
  10. 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.
  11. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18: 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5
  12. Fontenele RC, Nascimento EH, Vasconcelos TV, Noujeim M, Freitas DQ. Magnitude of cone beam CT image artifacts related to zirconium and titanium implants: impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20180021. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180021
  13. Vasconcelos TV, Bechara BB, McMahan CA, Freitas DQ, Noujeim M. Evaluation of artifacts generated by zirconium implants in cone-beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 123: 265-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2016.10.021
  14. Mancini AX, Santos MU, Gaeta-Araujo H, Tirapelli C, Pauwels R, Oliveira-Santos C. Artefacts at different distances from titanium and zirconia implants in cone-beam computed tomography: effect of tube current and metal artefact reduction. Clin Oral Investig 2021; 25: 5087-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03821-y
  15. Nascimento EH, Gaeta-Araujo H, Fontenele RC, Oliveira-Santos N, Oliveira-Santos C, Freitas DQ. Do the number of basis images and metal artifact reduction affect the production of artifacts near and far from zirconium dental implants in CBCT? Clin Oral Investig 2021; 25: 5281-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03836-5
  16. Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thorac Oncol 2010; 5: 1315-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181ec173d
  17. 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
  18. Nascimento EH, Fontenele RC, Santaella GM, Freitas DQ. Difference in the artefacts production and the performance of the metal artefact reduction (MAR) tool between the buccal and lingual cortical plates adjacent to zirconium dental implant. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48: 20190058. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190058
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Vanderstuyft T, Tarce M, Sanaan B, Jacobs R, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Quirynen M. Inaccuracy of buccal bone thickness estimation on cone-beam CT due to implant blooming: an ex-vivo study. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46: 1134-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13183
  22. 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
  23. Song D, Shujaat S, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Huang Y, Politis C, Lambrichts I, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT versus intraoral imaging for assessment of peri-implant bone defects. BMC Med Imaging 2021; 21: 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-021-00557-9
  24. Carter JV, Pan J, Rai SN, Galandiuk S. ROC-ing along: evaluation and interpretation of receiver operating characteristic curves. Surgery 2016; 159: 1638-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.12.029
  25. Freitas DQ, Fontenele RC, Nascimento EH, Vasconcelos TV, Noujeim M. Influence of acquisition parameters on the magnitude of cone beam computed tomography artifacts. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20180151. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180151
  26. de Rezende Barbosa GL, Sousa Melo SL, Alencar PN, Nascimento MC, Almeida SM. Performance of an artefact reduction algorithm in the diagnosis of in vitro vertical root fracture in four different root filling conditions on CBCT images. Int Endod J 2016; 49: 500-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12477
  27. Kamburoglu K, Yilmaz F, Yeta EN, Ozen D. Assessment of furcal perforations in the vicinity of different root canal sealers using a cone beam computed tomography system with and without the application of artifact reduction mode: an ex vivo investigation on extracted human teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121: 657-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2016.01.010
  28. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M. Clinical outcomes of GBR procedures to correct peri-implant dehiscences and fenestrations: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20 Suppl 4:113-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01781.x