Clinical oral implants research · 2024
Do the number of zirconia implants and the thickness of CBCT image reconstruction affect the detection of peri-implant bone defect? A diagnostic accuracy 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.
da Fonte Juliana Batista Melo, Fontenele Rocharles Cavalcante, Farias-Gomes Amanda, Ruiz Débora Costa, Andrade-Bortoletto Maria Fernanda Silva, Sousa Melo Saulo L, Freitas Deborah Queiroz
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of multiplanar reconstruction thickness on the detection of peri-implant bone defects with a standalone zirconia implant and compare it to when another implant is in the vicinity using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five dry human mandibles were used to create twenty implant sites in the second premolar and first molar regions. The OP300 Maxio was used to acquire CBCT images (90 kVp, 6.3 mA, 5 × 5 cm FOV, and 0.125 mm3 voxel size) before and after creating 3 mm peri-implant bone defects in the buccal aspect of the premolar region. Half of the scans featured a single zirconia implant in the premolar region, while the others had two implants in the premolar and molar regions. Three reconstruction thicknesses (0.125 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm) were considered for the multiplanar reconstruction analyses. Five oral and maxillofacial radiologists assessed the detection of peri-implant bone defects using a 5-point scale. Diagnostic parameters were calculated and compared using Two-way ANOVA (α = .05).
RESULTS: The studied factors showed no significant influence on the diagnosis of peri-implant bone defects (p > .05). Diagnostic performance was notably higher with a single implant, especially with a 2-mm reconstruction thickness (AUC = 0.88, sensitivity = 0.68, specificity = 0.94). Although the differences were not statistically significant, the results were more modest when two implants were present (AUC = 0.80, sensitivity = 0.58, specificity = 0.82).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an adjacent zirconia implant and variations in reconstruction thickness did not influence the detection of 3 mm buccal peri-implant bone defects on CBCT images.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five dry human mandibles were used to create twenty implant sites in the second premolar and first molar regions. The OP300 Maxio was used to acquire CBCT images (90 kVp, 6.3 mA, 5 × 5 cm FOV, and 0.125 mm3 voxel size) before and after creating 3 mm peri-implant bone defects in the buccal aspect of the premolar region. Half of the scans featured a single zirconia implant in the premolar region, while the others had two implants in the premolar and molar regions. Three reconstruction thicknesses (0.125 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm) were considered for the multiplanar reconstruction analyses. Five oral and maxillofacial radiologists assessed the detection of peri-implant bone defects using a 5-point scale. Diagnostic parameters were calculated and compared using Two-way ANOVA (α = .05).
RESULTS: The studied factors showed no significant influence on the diagnosis of peri-implant bone defects (p > .05). Diagnostic performance was notably higher with a single implant, especially with a 2-mm reconstruction thickness (AUC = 0.88, sensitivity = 0.68, specificity = 0.94). Although the differences were not statistically significant, the results were more modest when two implants were present (AUC = 0.80, sensitivity = 0.58, specificity = 0.82).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an adjacent zirconia implant and variations in reconstruction thickness did not influence the detection of 3 mm buccal peri-implant bone defects on CBCT images.