Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2023
Mapping artifacts generated in a tooth adjacent to titanium and zirconia implants located in the endomass and exomass in cone beam computed tomography: 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.
Andrade-Bortoletto Maria Fernanda Silva, Fontenele Rocharles Cavalcante, Farias-Gomes Amanda, Freitas Deborah Queiroz
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated artifact expression in a root adjacent to a dental implant located in the endomass or exomass in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).
STUDY DESIGN: We placed a single titanium or zirconia implant adjacent to a premolar root in a dried human mandible and acquired CBCT scans using an OP300 Maxio and a Picasso Trio 3D unit exposing a 5x5cm field of view with the implant in the endomass or exomass (implant groups) or without an implant (control group). We measured the mean gray values (MGVs) for 8 lines of interest (LOIs) around the root canal of the premolar and compared the MGVs by analysis of variance, with significance established at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: For the OP300 Maxio scans, the MGVs of both implant groups in the endomass were lower than the MGVs of the control group. In the exomass, the titanium group had MGVs similar to the control group, but the zirconia group produced significantly lower MGVs than control and titanium groups (P <.0001), indicating the presence of hypodense artifacts. For the Picasso Trio 3D scans, the MGVs of both implant groups in the endomass were similar to the MGVs of the control group. In the exomass, the zirconia group generated lower MGVs than control and titanium groups (P <.0001), indicating hypodense artifacts.
CONCLUSIONS: When performing CBCT examination, titanium implants produce less artifact expression in the exomass, and zirconia implants have less artifact expression in the endomass.
STUDY DESIGN: We placed a single titanium or zirconia implant adjacent to a premolar root in a dried human mandible and acquired CBCT scans using an OP300 Maxio and a Picasso Trio 3D unit exposing a 5x5cm field of view with the implant in the endomass or exomass (implant groups) or without an implant (control group). We measured the mean gray values (MGVs) for 8 lines of interest (LOIs) around the root canal of the premolar and compared the MGVs by analysis of variance, with significance established at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: For the OP300 Maxio scans, the MGVs of both implant groups in the endomass were lower than the MGVs of the control group. In the exomass, the titanium group had MGVs similar to the control group, but the zirconia group produced significantly lower MGVs than control and titanium groups (P <.0001), indicating the presence of hypodense artifacts. For the Picasso Trio 3D scans, the MGVs of both implant groups in the endomass were similar to the MGVs of the control group. In the exomass, the zirconia group generated lower MGVs than control and titanium groups (P <.0001), indicating hypodense artifacts.
CONCLUSIONS: When performing CBCT examination, titanium implants produce less artifact expression in the exomass, and zirconia implants have less artifact expression in the endomass.