Accuracy of detecting and measuring buccal bone thickness adjacent to titanium dental implants—a cone beam computed tomography in vitro study

Liedke, Gabriela Salatino; Spin‐Neto, Rubens; Silveira, Heloísa Emília Dias da; Schropp, Lars; Stavropoulos, Andreas; Wenzel, Ann

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2018.06.004

Cited by 11 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In comparison with optical imaging, Marotti et al (2019) [30] showed a mean measurement error of 0.2mm for CBCT. This mean was in agreement with the study of Liedke et al (2019) [36],…”

Section: Results Of Individual Studiessupporting

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Peri-implant Buccal Bone Thickness Using Digital Imaging Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Bohner¹,

Hanisch²,

Chilvarquer³

et al. 2020

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to answer the following focused question: Do the currently available imaging techniques provide accuracy in the assessment of peri-implant buccal bone thickness? Methods: A search strategy was conducted in eight electronic databases, followed by an additional manual search in grey literature and references of selected articles. Studies evaluating the accuracy of imaging techniques to measure peri-implant buccal bone thickness were included. Individual risk of bias was assessed by the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate CBCT accuracy. The overall effect size was determined by means of the Z-test. Q test was used to evaluate the homogeneity of effect sizes among studies and I2 was applied to determine the variance within studies. Results: After an initial screening, 83 studies were further selected for full reading and 13 of them were considered eligible for this review. In sum, the accuracy of Cone-beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), of ultrasound, and of computed tomography were assessed. There was no statistically significant difference between CBCT and the gold standard (p=0.81). The mean difference between measurements of bone thickness obtained by CBCT and the goldstandard was -0.0.3mm [95%CI -0.29;0.253mm]. Conclusion: CBCT showed acceptable accuracy for assessing peri-implant bone. No meaningful conclusion could be drawn about other techniques.

show abstract

“…In comparison with optical imaging, Marotti et al (2019) [30] showed a mean measurement error of 0.2mm for CBCT. This mean was in agreement with the study of Liedke et al (2019) [36],…”

Section: Results Of Individual Studiessupporting

confidence: 94%

“…All included studies selected in this review were laboratory studies, in which a total of 219 implants were placed in cadaver jaws [28 -31] [26,28]. Digital images, used as a pre-operative scan without implants [31,35,37], optical scanner [30]or digital photograph [36] were also used as a reference. Fig.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Peri-implant Buccal Bone Thickness Using Digital Imaging Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Bohner¹,

Hanisch²,

Chilvarquer³

et al. 2020

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 Previous studies indicated that the denser the material of the implant and/or reconstruction (e.g., zirconia versus titanium) and/or a higher amount of dense material in the field of view (e.g., multiple versus single implants), the larger the amount of artifacts and the negative impact on the accuracy of CBCT. 19,20,31,32 For example, a zirconia implant with a zirconia supra-structure or a titanium implant with a zirconia supra-structure had significantly higher chances compared with a titanium implant and metal-ceramic supra-structure to interfere with a correct buccal bone assessment. 19,20 In contrast to these results, neither the abutment/crown material nor the implant diameter had any significant effect on the correct diagnosis herein.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19,20,31,32 For example, a zirconia implant with a zirconia supra-structure or a titanium implant with a zirconia supra-structure had significantly higher chances compared with a titanium implant and metal-ceramic supra-structure to interfere with a correct buccal bone assessment. 19,20 In contrast to these results, neither the abutment/crown material nor the implant diameter had any significant effect on the correct diagnosis herein. This may be due to differences among the various studies in the CBCT system and/or software version, or in the exposure (e.g., size of the field of view, voxel resolution) and/or reconstruction settings (e.g., slice thickness, grey levels).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Two previously published laboratory studies in pig mandibles demonstrated that various modifiable (e.g., the resolution and the image reconstruction thickness, the CBCT unit) and non-modifiable (e.g., the implant-abutment material, the number of implants in the field of view) factors influence the accuracy of CBCT when assessing the buccal bone at implant sites. 19,20 Specifically, zirconia implantabutment restorations compared with titanium implantabutment restorations as well as multiple implants (i.e., two or three implants) compared with single implants increased the risk that the buccal bone condition was not correctly detected by 12 to 20 times and by three to 12 times, respectively; the range in the odds ratio is based on the data derived from two different CBCT units used in this specific study. 19 However, to date, there is no information available on whether the buccal bone thickness (BBT) affects the accuracy of CBCT to determine the buccal bone level at implants (i.e., the exact distance from the implant shoulder to the buccal bone crest).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of cone‐beam computed tomography is limited at implant sites with a thin buccal bone: A laboratory study

Domic

Bertl

Ahmad

et al. 2020

Journal of Periodontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate whether buccal bone thickness (BBT), implant diameter, and abutment/crown material influence the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to determine the buccal bone level at titanium implants. Methods: Two implant beds (i.e., narrow and standard diameter) were prepared in each of 36 porcine bone blocks. The implant beds were positioned at a variable distance from the buccal bone surface; thus, resulting in three BBT groups (i.e., >0.5 to 1.0; >1.0 to 1.5; >1.5 to 2.0 mm). In half of the blocks, a buccal bone dehiscence of random extent ("depth") was created and implants were mounted with different abutment/crown material (i.e., titanium abutments with a metalceramic crown and zirconia abutments with an all-ceramic zirconia crown). The distance from the implant shoulder to the buccal bone crest was measured on cross-sectional CBCT images and compared with the direct measurements at the bone blocks. Results: While abutment/crown material and implant diameter had no effect on the detection accuracy of the buccal bone level at dental implants in CBCT scans, BBT had a significant effect. Specifically, when BBT was ≤1.0 mm, a dehiscence was often diagnosed although not present, that is, the sensitivity was high (95.8%), but the specificity (12.5%) and the detection accuracy (54.2%) were low. Further, the average measurement error of the distance from the implant shoulder to the buccal bone crest was 1.6 mm. Conclusions: Based on the present laboratory study, BBT has a major impact on the correct diagnosis of the buccal bone level at dental titanium implants in CBCT images; in cases where the buccal bone is ≤1 mm thick, detection of the buccal bone level is largely inaccurate.

show abstract

Radiographic Imaging in Implant Dentistry

Stavropoulos,

Bertl,

Beck

et al. 2023

Surgical Research in Implant Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of detecting and measuring buccal bone thickness adjacent to titanium dental implants—a cone beam computed tomography in vitro study

Cited by 11 publications

References 40 publications

Assessment of Peri-implant Buccal Bone Thickness Using Digital Imaging Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Assessment of Peri-implant Buccal Bone Thickness Using Digital Imaging Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Accuracy of cone‐beam computed tomography is limited at implant sites with a thin buccal bone: A laboratory study

Radiographic Imaging in Implant Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About