Clinical oral investigations · 2024
Influence of tube current and metal artifact reduction on the diagnosis of external cervical resorption in teeth adjacent to a dental implant in CBCT: an ex-vivo study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gonzalez-Passos Thamiles, Barros-Costa Matheus, Oliveira Matheus L, Freitas Deborah Queiroz
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This ex-vivo study aimed to assess the influence of tube current (mA) and metal artifact reduction (MAR) on the diagnosis of early external cervical resorption (EECR) in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the presence of an adjacent dental implant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three single-rooted teeth were sectioned longitudinally and EECR was induced using a spherical drill and 5% nitric acid in 10 teeth. Each tooth was positioned in the socket of the lower right canine of a dry human mandible and CBCT scans were acquired using 90 kVp, voxel of 0.085 mm, field of view of 5 x 5 cm, and varying tube current (4, 8 or 12 mA), MAR (enabled or disabled) and implant conditions (with a zirconia implant in the socket of the lower right first premolar or without). Five oral radiologists evaluated the presence of EECR in a 5-point scale and the diagnostic values (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve - AUC, sensitivity, and specificity) were compared using multi-way Analysis of Variance (α = 0.05). Kappa test assessed intra-/inter-evaluator agreement.
RESULTS: The tube current only influenced the AUC values in the presence of the implant and when MAR disabled; in this case, 8 mA showed lower values (p<0.007). MAR did not influence the diagnostic values (p>0.05). In general, the presence of an implant reduced the AUC values (p<0.0001); sensitivity values with 8 mA and MAR disabled, and specificity values with 4 mA and MAR enabled and 8 mA regardless MAR were also decreased (p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Variations in tube current and MAR were unable to improve EECR detection, which was impaired by the presence of an adjacent implant.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Increasing tube current or activating MAR tool does not improve EECR diagnosis, which is hampered by the artifacts generated by dental implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three single-rooted teeth were sectioned longitudinally and EECR was induced using a spherical drill and 5% nitric acid in 10 teeth. Each tooth was positioned in the socket of the lower right canine of a dry human mandible and CBCT scans were acquired using 90 kVp, voxel of 0.085 mm, field of view of 5 x 5 cm, and varying tube current (4, 8 or 12 mA), MAR (enabled or disabled) and implant conditions (with a zirconia implant in the socket of the lower right first premolar or without). Five oral radiologists evaluated the presence of EECR in a 5-point scale and the diagnostic values (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve - AUC, sensitivity, and specificity) were compared using multi-way Analysis of Variance (α = 0.05). Kappa test assessed intra-/inter-evaluator agreement.
RESULTS: The tube current only influenced the AUC values in the presence of the implant and when MAR disabled; in this case, 8 mA showed lower values (p<0.007). MAR did not influence the diagnostic values (p>0.05). In general, the presence of an implant reduced the AUC values (p<0.0001); sensitivity values with 8 mA and MAR disabled, and specificity values with 4 mA and MAR enabled and 8 mA regardless MAR were also decreased (p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Variations in tube current and MAR were unable to improve EECR detection, which was impaired by the presence of an adjacent implant.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Increasing tube current or activating MAR tool does not improve EECR diagnosis, which is hampered by the artifacts generated by dental implants.