Enhancement cone beam computed tomography filters improve in vitro periimplant dehiscence detection

de-Azevedo-Vaz, Sérgio Lins; Alencar, Phillipe Nogueira Barbosa; Rovaris, Karla; Campos, Paulo Sérgio Flores; Haiter-Neto, Francisco

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2013.06.029

Cited by 17 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…15 Accordingly, an overestimation of +0.3 mm of bone levels in the buccal bone and an underestimation of −0.83 mm in lingual area. 37,38 Contrastingly, CBCT imaging for defect analysis in in vivo animal studies showed positive correlation with histology but have a tendency to over- 17,34 or under-estimate 15,39 the size of the defect. 36 The ex vivo studies (cadaver models) demonstrated good values for sensitivity and specificity for both circumferential and infraosseous defects but lower for dehiscences.…”

Section: Agreements and Disagreements With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Morphology and severity of peri‐implantitis bone defects

Monje

Pons

Ínsua

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

122

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Peri-implant defect morphology has shown to potentially impact upon the reconstructive outcomes for the management of peri-implantitis. Given the role that defect morphology plays upon the decision-making in the treatment of peri-implantitis, the present study aimed at assessing the morphology and severity of peri-implantitis bone defects and to insight on the patient-, implant-and site-related variables associated to these. Material and Methods:A cone-beam computed tomography study was carried out to classify peri-implantitis defects according to the type of defect, number of remaining bony walls and severity according to the extension of vertical bone loss.Three major defect categories were proposed: class I-infraosseous; class II-horizontal;class III-combined of class I and II. These were then subclassified into: (a) dehiscence; (b) 2/3-wall; and (c) circumferential-type defect. According to the severity the defects were further subclassified into: A: advanced; M: moderate; and S: slight. In addition, 20 site-, implant-, and patient-related variables were analyzed by generalized estimating equations (GEEs) of multilevel logistic regression models.Results: Based on an a priori power calculation, 332 implants were screened in 47 peri-implantitis patients. Of these, 158 peri-implantitis implants were eligible. The most prevalent defect morphology type was class Ib (55%) followed by class Ia (16.5%), and class IIIb (13.9%). On the contrary, the less frequent defect was class II (1.9%). The most frequent degree of severity was M (50.6%) with S (10.1%) being the least prevalent. Buccal bone loss was significantly greater compared to the other bony walls in class I and class III defects. Age was associated with the type of defect.Age and smoking habit were associated with the morphology of the defects, while smoking habit, type of prosthesis and distance to adjacent implant were associated with the severity of the defects (vertical bone loss).Conclusion: Peri-implantitis defects frequently course with an infraosseous component and often with buccal bone loss. Certain patient-, implant-, and site-specific variables are related with defect morphology and severity. However, morphological patterns for periimplantitis bone defects could not be proven (NCT NCT03777449).K E Y W O R D S alveolar bone, dental implants, diagnostic, implant stability, peri-implantitis, peri-implant mucositis

show abstract

Section: Agreements and Disagreements With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Morphology and severity of peri‐implantitis bone defects

Monje

Pons

Ínsua

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

122

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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., ) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pelekos

Acharya

Tonetti

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this publication, technical recommendations were given for PR (mSv: 0.002–0.006/radiograph; use of F ‐speed film, rectangular collimation and paralleling technique) as well as CBCT imaging (mSv: <0.5/jaw; KV: 120; mAs: <100; Slice thickness: 1 mm; Pitch: 1–1.5; suggested window: 1,250/window level: 250). The detectability of peri‐implant bone defects can be further optimized by adjustment and customization of image pre‐settings (“filters”) in CBCT imaging software, as shown in a recent study (de‐Azevedo‐Vaz, ). Radiation dose reduction is possible by decreasing the number of slices, increasing pitch and lowering mAs (Harris et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of peri‐implant defects at titanium and zirconium dioxide implants by means of periapical radiographs and cone beam computed tomography: An in‐vitro examination

Steiger-Ronay

Krcmaric²,

Schmidlin

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To test the accuracy of measurement of interproximal peri‐implant bone defects at titanium (Ti) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) implants by digital periapical radiography (PR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and methods A total of 18 models, each containing one Ti and one ZrO2 implant, were cast in dental stone. Six models each were allocated to following defect groups: A—no peri‐implant defect, B—1 mm width defect, C—1.5 mm width defect. The defect width was measured with a digital sliding caliper. Subsequently, the models were scanned by means of PR and CBCT. Three examiners assessed the defect width on PR and CBCT. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were applied to detect differences between imaging techniques and implant types. Results For PR, the deviation of the defect width measurement (mm) for groups A, B, and C amounted to 0.01 ± 0.03, −0.02 ± 0.06, and −0.00 ± 0.04 at Ti and 0.05 ± 0.02, 0.01 ± 0.03, and 0.09 ± 0.03 at ZrO2 implants. The corresponding values (mm) for CBCT reached 0.10 ± 0.11, 0.26 ± 0.05, and 0.24 ± 0.08 at Ti and 1.07 ± 0.06, 0.64 ± 0.37, and 0.54 ± 0.17 at ZrO2 implants. Except for Ti with defect A, measurements in PR were significantly more accurate in comparison to CBCT (p ≤ 0.05). Both methods generally yielded more accurate measurements for Ti than for ZrO2. Conclusions The assessment of interproximal peri‐implant defect width at Ti and ZrO2 implants was more accurate in PR in comparison to CBCT. Measurements in CBCT always led to an overestimation of the defect width, reaching clinical relevance for ZrO2 implants.

show abstract

Enhancement cone beam computed tomography filters improve in vitro periimplant dehiscence detection

Cited by 17 publications

References 38 publications

Morphology and severity of peri‐implantitis bone defects

Morphology and severity of peri‐implantitis bone defects

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

Assessment of peri‐implant defects at titanium and zirconium dioxide implants by means of periapical radiographs and cone beam computed tomography: An in‐vitro examination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About