Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2013
Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence with the use of two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of a cone-beam computed tomography device.
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.
de-Azevedo-Vaz Sergio Lins, Vasconcelos Karla de Faria, Neves Frederico Sampaio, Melo Saulo Leonardo Sousa, Campos Paulo Sérgio Flores, Haiter-Neto Francisco
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in periimplant fenestration and dehiscence detection, and to determine the effects of 2 voxel sizes and scan modes.
STUDY DESIGN: One hundred titanium implants were placed in bovine ribs in which periimplant fenestration and dehiscence were simulated. CBCT images were acquired with the use of 3 protocols of the i-CAT NG unit: A) 0.2 mm voxel size half-scan (180°); B) 0.2 mm voxel size full-scan (360°); and C) 0.12 mm voxel size full scan (360°). Receiver operating characteristic curves and diagnostic values were obtained. The Az values were compared with the use of analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The Az value for dehiscence in protocol A was significantly lower than those of B or C (P < .01). They did not statistically differ for fenestration (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Protocol B yielded the highest values. The voxel sizes did not affect fenestration and dehiscence detection, and for dehiscence full-scan performed better than half-scan.
STUDY DESIGN: One hundred titanium implants were placed in bovine ribs in which periimplant fenestration and dehiscence were simulated. CBCT images were acquired with the use of 3 protocols of the i-CAT NG unit: A) 0.2 mm voxel size half-scan (180°); B) 0.2 mm voxel size full-scan (360°); and C) 0.12 mm voxel size full scan (360°). Receiver operating characteristic curves and diagnostic values were obtained. The Az values were compared with the use of analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The Az value for dehiscence in protocol A was significantly lower than those of B or C (P < .01). They did not statistically differ for fenestration (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Protocol B yielded the highest values. The voxel sizes did not affect fenestration and dehiscence detection, and for dehiscence full-scan performed better than half-scan.