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

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 (ZrO 2 ) 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 ZrO 2 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 ZrO 2 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 ZrO 2 implants, and fenestration was more accurately diagnosed than dehiscence in Ti implants.

Comparison of the amount of artifacts induced by zirconium and titanium implants in cone-beam computed tomography images

“…Thus, the limitations of the CBCT systems and the amount of artifacts in these images should be considered. However, Chagas et al [ 27 ] found no significant difference regarding diagnostic accuracy between CBCT images of peri-implant bone defects around titanium implants and zirconium dioxide implants.…”

Correlation analysis between radiation exposure and the image quality of cone-beam computed tomography in the dental clinical environment

“… 1 2 CBCT was first applied in the dental field in the mid-1990s, and the scope of its application has been gradually expanded. 3 4 5 According to a 2019 research report in South Korea, CBCT was used 778,766 times in 2019, compared to 399,327 times in 2016. 6 As the usage of CBCT in the dental field has increased dramatically, the importance of equipment management has also been recognized.…”