Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026
Metal artifact reduction improves cone-beam CT diagnosis of peri-implant bone defects regardless of adjacent implant position in endomass or exomass.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Santana-Santos Lucas, Borge Carolina Paes, Gaêta-Araujo Hugo, Oliveira Matheus L, Freitas Deborah Queiroz, Farias-Gomes Amanda
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of the position of an adjacent implant, either within the endomass or exomass, and the use of the metal artifact reduction (MAR) tool on the diagnosis of peri-implant bone defects associated with the surfaces of a zirconia implant in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images.
METHODS: Ten bovine rib blocks were used to simulate a human mandible, each receiving 2 zirconia implants. CBCT images were acquired using the OP300 Maxio device (90 kVp, 6.3 mA, FOV 5 × 5 cm, voxel 0.125 mm) under 2 positions for the adjacent nontest implant (endomass and exomass), with and without MAR application, totaling 40 scans for the without peri-implant bone defects group. Circumferential bone defects were then created around the test implant, and 40 scans were acquired for the group with peri-implant bone defects under the same conditions. Four oral and maxillofacial radiologists individually evaluated each surface of the test implant for the presence of bone defect, using a 5-point scale. Weighted Kappa was used to assess intra- and interexaminer reproducibility. Diagnostic values were compared using multifactorial ANOVA (α = .05).
RESULTS: In general, the position of the adjacent implant did not significantly affect the diagnostic values (P > .05). MAR application significantly increased sensitivity and area under the ROC curve for most implant surfaces, particularly the mesial and distal surfaces, regardless of adjacent implant position (P <.05). Specificity remained high under all conditions. Intra- and interexaminer agreement ranged from fair to substantial.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adjacent implant position-whether within the endomass or exomass-, with an interimplant distance of 5 mm, does not impact peri-implant bone defect diagnosis associated with a zirconia implant. MAR substantially improves the diagnosis of peri-implant defects on most implant surfaces, especially in the proximal area, regardless the adjacent implant position in the endomass or exomass.
METHODS: Ten bovine rib blocks were used to simulate a human mandible, each receiving 2 zirconia implants. CBCT images were acquired using the OP300 Maxio device (90 kVp, 6.3 mA, FOV 5 × 5 cm, voxel 0.125 mm) under 2 positions for the adjacent nontest implant (endomass and exomass), with and without MAR application, totaling 40 scans for the without peri-implant bone defects group. Circumferential bone defects were then created around the test implant, and 40 scans were acquired for the group with peri-implant bone defects under the same conditions. Four oral and maxillofacial radiologists individually evaluated each surface of the test implant for the presence of bone defect, using a 5-point scale. Weighted Kappa was used to assess intra- and interexaminer reproducibility. Diagnostic values were compared using multifactorial ANOVA (α = .05).
RESULTS: In general, the position of the adjacent implant did not significantly affect the diagnostic values (P > .05). MAR application significantly increased sensitivity and area under the ROC curve for most implant surfaces, particularly the mesial and distal surfaces, regardless of adjacent implant position (P <.05). Specificity remained high under all conditions. Intra- and interexaminer agreement ranged from fair to substantial.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adjacent implant position-whether within the endomass or exomass-, with an interimplant distance of 5 mm, does not impact peri-implant bone defect diagnosis associated with a zirconia implant. MAR substantially improves the diagnosis of peri-implant defects on most implant surfaces, especially in the proximal area, regardless the adjacent implant position in the endomass or exomass.