Intra- and inter-observer agreements in detecting peri-implant bone defects between periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography: A clinical study

Abstract

Background/purpose Information regarding agreements between periapical radiograph (PA) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in detecting peri-implant defect is still scarce. The aim of this clinical study was to compare agreements between PA and CBCT in detecting peri-implant bone defect. Materials and methods This retrospective clinical study enrolled 32 patients with both PA and CBCT filmed right after implant placement. Four modalities were used for film reading: PA1 (original), PA2 (enhanced brightness/contrast), CBCT1 (selected axial and mesial-distal direction images) and CBCT2 (all data with software). 2 experienced and 2 inexperienced observers scored all films. Intra- and inter-observer agreements were estimated with Cohen's kappa coefficient. Categorized agreements were compared and differences among four modalities were calculated. Results Agreements of PA were better than CBCT when detecting peri-implant bone defects in inter-observer agreements (median kappa 0.471 vs. 0.192; p = 0.016). Moreover, agreements in experienced observers were better than inexperienced observers (median kappa 0.883 vs. 0.567; p < 0.001). There was significant difference among four modalities except for experienced observer 2 (p = 0.218). Conclusion Agreements of PA are better than CBCT when detecting peri-implant bone defects, especially for inter-observer agreements. Experienced observers are more consistent in assessment than inexperienced ones.

Influence of metal artefact reduction on the diagnosis of contact between implant and mandibular canal in cone beam computed tomography: An ex‐vivo study

“…Schriber et al, 2020, found that DMFR observers reported a more accurate performance than OMFS (oral and maxillofacial surgeons) in the diagnosis of peri‐implant bone defects using CBCT. Zhang et al, 2021 found that agreement between experienced dentists (5 years of experience in implant imaging) was higher than that of inexperienced observers in the detection of peri‐implant defects by CBCT and periapical radiographs. This is in accordance with the present study, in which, DMFR showed a higher agreement with the correct diagnosis, which can be attributed to their higher degree of experience and training for this task.…”

Analysis of Bone Density and Bone Morphometry by Periapical Radiographs in Dental Implant Osseointegration Process

“…Measurement of density analysis and bone morphometry for each periapical radiograph were performed by an intraobserver test. The observers repeated the evaluation three times in a 2-week interval [ 36 ]. The morphometric measurement started with converting all the data from DICOM to 64-bit format and then determining the region of interest (ROI) using the free-hand selection tool.…”

Reliability assessment of the 2018 classification case definitions of peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis

“…Further information regarding the reproducibility of the PD [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] and BoP 26 measurement as well as the agreement in bone level assessment on intraoral radiographs [42][43][44][45] is available as Supplementary Material S3 in the online Journal of Periodontology.…”