Efficacy of low-dose cone beam computed tomography and metal artifact reduction tool for assessment of peri-implant bone defects: an in vitro study

BMC Oral Health

Research

Alaa Shafiek Nomier¹  Maha R. Taalab¹  Yousria Salah El-Din Gaweesh¹  Shaimaa Abu El Sadat² 

[1] Department of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Oral Diagnosis and Oral Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champolion St. Azarita, 21521, Alexandria, Egypt;Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt;

关键词: CBCT;    Dehiscence;    Dental implants;    Fenestration;    Low-dose protocol;    MAR;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-022-02663-8

 received in 2022-08-22, accepted in 2022-12-12,  发布年份 2022

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundEarly accurate radiographic assessment of peri-implant bone condition is highly important to avoid excessive loss of supporting bone and implant failure. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the radiographic technique of choice if peri-implant dehiscence and fenestration defects are suspected. The higher radiation dose and the presence of beam hardening artifacts are the main drawbacks of CBCT imaging techniques. This study aims to evaluate the influence of low-dose cone beam computed tomography (LD-CBCT) and metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool on the assessment of peri-implant dehiscence and fenestration.MethodologyThirty titanium implants were inserted into bovine rib blocks. Twenty had standardized bone defects (10 with dehiscence and 10 with fenestration), while the remaining 10 were used as control group with no defects. Radiographic examinations held with high‐definition CBCT (HD-CBCT) and LD-CBCT with and without application of MAR tool. Images were assessed by four examiners for the presence or absence of peri-implant defects. The area under the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated for all radiographic protocols.ResultsIn the absence of MAR tool, there was no difference in AUC and diagnostic values between LD-CBCT and HD-CBCT for detection of both defects. When the MAR tool was applied, the AUC values, sensitivity, and accuracy were higher in HD-CBCT than in LD-CBCT for the detection of both defects, especially for the dehiscence, while specificity remained the same.ConclusionLD-CBCT can be used in the evaluation of peri-implant dehiscence and fenestration without any decrease in diagnostic accuracy. The application of MAR tool decrease the diagnostic ability of both defects, especially for the detection of dehiscence defects.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2022

【 图 表 】

Fig. 5

40249_2022_1045_Article_IEq23.gif

40249_2022_1045_Article_IEq20.gif

Fig. 4