Clinical oral implants research · 2023
Influence of metal artefact reduction on the diagnosis of contact between implant and mandibular canal in cone beam computed tomography: An ex-vivo study.
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.
de Freitas Bruna Neves, da Motta Raphael Jurca Gonçalves, Pauwels Ruben, Oliveira-Santos Christiano, Tirapelli Camila
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of metal artefact reduction (MAR) in the diagnosis of dental implant contact with the mandibular canal (MC) using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).
METHODS: Dental implants were installed with surgical guides in the posterior hemiarches of 10 dry human mandibles: 0.5 mm above to the MC cortex (G1/n = 8) and 0.5 mm inside the MC (G2/n = 10). The experimental set-up was scanned with two CBCT equipment using 85 kV and 90 kV, MAR ON or OFF, and different tube currents (4 mA, 8 mA and 10 mA). Two dentomaxillofacial radiologists (DMFRs) and two dentists (DDS) scored the relation between the dental implant and MC. Descriptive statistics were used to observe the absolute frequency of scores. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated considering the known relation between the dental implant and the MC interior. McNemar's test (α = .05) was applied to compare the diagnostic efficacy of MAR ON versus MAR OFF.
RESULTS: Overall specificity was higher than sensitivity for both DDS and DMFR (97% vs. 50% and 92.0% vs. 78.0% respectively). There was a significant effect of MAR (p = .031) for DMFR in the case of contact between the dental implant with the MC interior, in which sensitivity decreased with MAR activation from 90% to 40%. DMFR observers showed a better diagnostic performance compared with the DDS observers (accuracy of 84.0% and 71.0%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited efficacy of MAR, it should not be used when conducting CBCT scans for the evaluation of contact between the implant and the mandibular canal.
METHODS: Dental implants were installed with surgical guides in the posterior hemiarches of 10 dry human mandibles: 0.5 mm above to the MC cortex (G1/n = 8) and 0.5 mm inside the MC (G2/n = 10). The experimental set-up was scanned with two CBCT equipment using 85 kV and 90 kV, MAR ON or OFF, and different tube currents (4 mA, 8 mA and 10 mA). Two dentomaxillofacial radiologists (DMFRs) and two dentists (DDS) scored the relation between the dental implant and MC. Descriptive statistics were used to observe the absolute frequency of scores. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated considering the known relation between the dental implant and the MC interior. McNemar's test (α = .05) was applied to compare the diagnostic efficacy of MAR ON versus MAR OFF.
RESULTS: Overall specificity was higher than sensitivity for both DDS and DMFR (97% vs. 50% and 92.0% vs. 78.0% respectively). There was a significant effect of MAR (p = .031) for DMFR in the case of contact between the dental implant with the MC interior, in which sensitivity decreased with MAR activation from 90% to 40%. DMFR observers showed a better diagnostic performance compared with the DDS observers (accuracy of 84.0% and 71.0%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited efficacy of MAR, it should not be used when conducting CBCT scans for the evaluation of contact between the implant and the mandibular canal.