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

In vitro diagnostic accuracy of low‐dose CBCT for evaluation of peri‐implant bone lesions

“…These defects have been investigated before (Hilgenfeld et al, ; Kühl et al, ; Schwarz et al, ). It has often been proposed that acid etching using 70% perchloric acid after the creation of artificial defects simulates more realistic bone defects (Hilgenfeld et al, ; Pinheiro et al, ; Umetsubo et al, ). The present study differed in one respect from other investigations in this field, which is that implant restorations were included in the test setup.…”

“…This would cause more artifacts than our study setup did, thus complicating diagnostics. Second, they used a larger FOV, which (a) results in more artifacts from neighboring structures and (b) reduces image quality (Pinheiro et al, ).…”

Effect of Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography Field of View and Acquisition Frame on the Detection of Chemically Simulated Peri‐Implant Bone Loss In Vitro

“…Fresh bovine ribs 5,8,11,12 were used as a bone surrogate and arranged into an imaging phantom into which dental implants were inserted and pericircumferential defects were chemically created as described previously 13 …”

Diagnostic performance of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri‐implant bone loss: A systematic review

“…In total, 13 in vitro and five animal studies were included. The main study characteristics and findings are summarized in Table : Seven in vitro studies (Dave, Davies, Wilson, & Palmer, ; Kühl et al., ; Mengel, Kruse, & Flores‐de‐Jacoby, ; Pinheiro, Gaia et al., ; Pinheiro, Scarfe et al., ; Pinheiro et al., ; Sirin et al., ) and all the five in vivo animal studies (Fienitz et al., ; Golubovic, Mihatovic, Becker, & Schwarz, ; Ritter et al., ; dos Santos Corpas et al., ; Schwarz, Sahm, Mihatovic, Golubovic, & Becker, ) analyzed defects of a circumferential‐intrabony type; seven in vitro studies addressed dehiscence defects (de‐Azevedo‐Vaz, Alencar, Rovaris, Campos, & Haiter‐Neto, ; de‐Azevedo‐Vaz, Peyneau et al., ; de‐Azevedo‐Vaz et al., ; González‐Martín et al., ; Kamburoğlu et al., , ; Mengel et al., ); four addressed fenestrations (de‐Azevedo‐Vaz, Peyneau et al., ; de‐Azevedo‐Vaz et al., ; González‐Martín et al., ; Mengel et al., ) .…”

“…With regard to the method of peri‐implant defect creation, surgical creation of peri‐implant defects was the most common method, adopted by nine of the in vitro studies (de‐Azevedo‐Vaz, Alencar et al., ; de‐Azevedo‐Vaz, Peyneau et al., ; de‐Azevedo‐Vaz et al., ; Dave et al., ; Kamburoğlu et al., , ; Kühl et al., ; Mengel et al., ; Sirin et al., ). Furthermore, three studies applied chemical etching with perchloric acid (Pinheiro, Gaia et al., ; Pinheiro, Scarfe et al., ; Pinheiro et al., ), and one study (Sirin et al., ) used a combined protocol of over‐drilling and etching with formic acid. Within the animal studies, two studies used ligature‐induced peri‐implantitis (Golubovic et al., ; Schwarz et al., ), two studies placed implants into surgically created chronic alveolar defects (Fienitz et al., ; Ritter et al., ), and one study analyzed peri‐implant craterlike defects formed during implant bed preparation (dos Santos Corpas et al., ).…”