International journal of implant dentistry · 2025
Dental photon-counting computed tomography for the assessment of Peri-Implant structures.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ruetters Maurice, Mertens Christian, Gehrig Holger, Sen Sinan, Kim Ti-Sun, Schlemmer Hans-Peter, Schoenberg Stefan, Froelich Matthias, Kachelrieß Marc, Sawall Stefan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) in the imaging of peri-implant bone structures and to compare it quantitatively and qualitatively to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
METHODS: Thirty titanium implants were placed in ten porcine mandibles. CBCT and PCCT scans were acquired and compared quantitatively regarding image noise and CT-values. Additionally bone thickness was compared to a gold standard at 60 standardized locations by one calibrated investigator in both modalities. Measurement accuracy was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Two experienced raters performed qualitative assessments of anatomic structures around the implant using a 5-point visibility scale. These included the bone-implant interface around the implant surface, the bone at the implant shoulder as well as the oral and vestibular bone lamella. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using ICC.
RESULTS: Across all evaluated implants, CT-values in a soft-tissue region of interest adjacent to the implant increased by 11.7 ± 3.9% for CBCT acquisitions, whereas they decreased by 5.3 ± 1.3% for PCCT acquisitions. Similarly, image noise in the respective ROIs is increased by a factor of 63 ± 13% in case of CBCT acquisitions and only by 23 ± 5% in case of PCCT acquisitions. Bone thickness deviations were smaller for PCCT (mean ± SD: 0.06 ± 0.08 mm) than for CBCT (0.39 ± 0.34 mm). Qualitative assessments consistently favored PCCT (p < 0.05) with excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC > 0.75 ) in almost all categories.
CONCLUSIONS: PCCT enables superior visualization of peri-implant bone structures with fewer artifacts and improved diagnostic accuracy.
METHODS: Thirty titanium implants were placed in ten porcine mandibles. CBCT and PCCT scans were acquired and compared quantitatively regarding image noise and CT-values. Additionally bone thickness was compared to a gold standard at 60 standardized locations by one calibrated investigator in both modalities. Measurement accuracy was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Two experienced raters performed qualitative assessments of anatomic structures around the implant using a 5-point visibility scale. These included the bone-implant interface around the implant surface, the bone at the implant shoulder as well as the oral and vestibular bone lamella. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using ICC.
RESULTS: Across all evaluated implants, CT-values in a soft-tissue region of interest adjacent to the implant increased by 11.7 ± 3.9% for CBCT acquisitions, whereas they decreased by 5.3 ± 1.3% for PCCT acquisitions. Similarly, image noise in the respective ROIs is increased by a factor of 63 ± 13% in case of CBCT acquisitions and only by 23 ± 5% in case of PCCT acquisitions. Bone thickness deviations were smaller for PCCT (mean ± SD: 0.06 ± 0.08 mm) than for CBCT (0.39 ± 0.34 mm). Qualitative assessments consistently favored PCCT (p < 0.05) with excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC > 0.75 ) in almost all categories.
CONCLUSIONS: PCCT enables superior visualization of peri-implant bone structures with fewer artifacts and improved diagnostic accuracy.