Accuracy of CBCT images in the assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects: effect of field of view

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the reliability and accuracy of cone beam CT (CBCT) images obtained at different fields of view in detecting and quantifying simulated buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects. Methods: Simulated buccal defects were prepared in 69 implants inserted into cadaver mandibles. CBCT images at three different fields of view were acquired: 40 3 40, 60 3 60 and 100 3 100 mm. The presence or absence of defects was assessed on three sets of images using a five-point scale by three observers. Observers also measured the depth, width and volume of defects on CBCT images, which were compared with physical measurements. The kappa value was calculated to assess intra-and interobserver agreement. Six-way repeated analysis of variance was used to evaluate treatment effects on the diagnosis. Pairwise comparisons of median truepositive and true-negative rates were calculated by the x 2 test. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between measurements. Significance level was set as p , 0.05. Results: All observers had excellent intra-observer agreement. Defect status (p , 0.001) and defect size ( p , 0.001) factors were statistically significant. Pairwise interactions were found between defect status and defect size (p 5 0.001). No differences between median true-positive or true-negative values were found between CBCT field of views (p . 0.05). Significant correlations were found between physical and CBCT measurements (p , 0.001). Conclusions: All CBCT images performed similarly for the detection of simulated buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects. Depth, width and volume measurements of the defects from various CBCT images correlated highly with physical measurements.

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

“…Previous studies have tested the accuracy of CBCT in detecting peri-implant bone defects 6,7,[12][13][14][15][16] ; however, the size and shape of the defects and the viewing conditions used in these studies failed to mimic actual clinical situations. Furthermore, only one of them compared the detectability of different CBCT fields of view (FOVs) for peri-implant bone defects 12 and found no difference between the different settings.…”

“…Furthermore, only one of them compared the detectability of different CBCT fields of view (FOVs) for peri-implant bone defects 12 and found no difference between the different settings. Furthermore, some issues still require an appropriate discussion: the importance of reading CBCT volume using DICOM viewer software and its post-processing tools, and the influence of observer expertise in the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT imaging as regards beam hardening artifacts.…”

“…Two kinds of artifacts can be observed: beam hardening artifacts that appear as dark voids adjacent to high-density structures, such as titanium implants, as a result of the differential absorption of low-energy X-ray photons by high-density materials; and streak artifacts that are also linked to highdensity objects or to a sub-optimal number of basis images. These artifacts can lead to the presence of linear hyperdensities radiating from the metallic object extending to the entire width of the field, affecting even the visualization of areas on the opposite side of the jaw [8][9][10][11][12] . Because the beam hardening artifact M A N U S C R I P T…”

CBCT quantitative evaluation of mandibular lingual concavities in dental implant patients

“…Kamburoglu et al [8] stated that there was a high correlation between physical and volume measurements which were performed with 3D DOCTOR software. Concavity volumes ranged widely-from 2.1 to 685.5 mm 3 for submandibular concavities and from 1.0 to 94.8 mm 3 for sublingual concavities.…”

Alveolar Ridge Preservation as a Way to Reduce the Need for Bone Augmentation: Implementation of a New, Non-invasive Method of Measuring Bone Preservation: Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial and Feasibility Testing Results

“…The mean palatal bone loss was 2.5 mm (CI 90%: 1.6-4.4) in CBCT [36], or motion artefacts [37]. Bone structures delimited by cortical bone, however, can be reliably 22 recognized and evaluated [38].…”