Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Tytuł pozycji:

Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography is limited at implant sites with a thin buccal bone: A laboratory study.

Tytuł:
Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography is limited at implant sites with a thin buccal bone: A laboratory study.
Autorzy:
Domic D; Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.; Division of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Bertl K; Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.; Division of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ahmad S; Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.
Schropp L; Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Hellén-Halme K; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.
Stavropoulos A; Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.; Division of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.; Division of Regenerative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinics of Dental Medicine (CUMD), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Źródło:
Journal of periodontology [J Periodontol] 2021 Apr; Vol. 92 (4), pp. 592-601. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Sep 16.
Typ publikacji:
Journal Article
Język:
English
Imprint Name(s):
Original Publication: [Chicago] American Academy of Periodontology.
MeSH Terms:
Alveolar Process*/diagnostic imaging
Dental Implants*
Animals ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Laboratories ; Swine ; Titanium
References:
J Periodontol. 2021 Apr;92(4):592-601. (PMID: 32846005)
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(2):20140157. (PMID: 25283364)
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:3848207. (PMID: 28798929)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(1):28-34. (PMID: 24299007)
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Jul;40(5):265-73. (PMID: 21697151)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jun;25(6):690-5. (PMID: 23442085)
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018 Nov;126(5):432-438. (PMID: 30126809)
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Jul;17(6):1601-9. (PMID: 23064974)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Dec;29(12):1195-1201. (PMID: 30387207)
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;16(4):349-54. (PMID: 22476693)
Quintessence Int. 2017;48(4):339-344. (PMID: 28294197)
Clin Oral Investig. 2007 Mar;11(1):101-6. (PMID: 17048029)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Oct;18(5):552-62. (PMID: 17608739)
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Dec;41(8):686-90. (PMID: 22933536)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan;21(1):22-9. (PMID: 19912273)
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017 Jul;46(5):20160377. (PMID: 28267928)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Apr;24(4):378-83. (PMID: 23106603)
J Periodontol. 2006 Jul;77(7):1234-41. (PMID: 16805688)
J Oral Implantol. 2016 Jun;42(3):311-4. (PMID: 26645480)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jul;21(7):718-25. (PMID: 20636726)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 May;22(5):492-9. (PMID: 21143531)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 May;26(5):492-500. (PMID: 24890861)
J Dent Res. 2018 Mar;97(3):266-274. (PMID: 29073362)
Arch Oral Biol. 1973 Feb;18(2):171-80. (PMID: 4515582)
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 2:e576-85. (PMID: 25535809)
J Periodontol. 2017 Oct;88(10):946-959. (PMID: 28967330)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:393-415. (PMID: 30328204)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61. (PMID: 15635945)
Lab Anim. 2012 Oct;46(4):269-79. (PMID: 22969144)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Aug;27(8):950-5. (PMID: 26178780)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan;21(1):37-42. (PMID: 20070745)
Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):51-72. (PMID: 28000270)
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(4):20130332. (PMID: 24645965)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Apr;22(4):424-9. (PMID: 21054555)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Sep;28(9):1082-1088. (PMID: 27444713)
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: alveolar process; cone-beam computed tomography; dental implants; titanium; zirconium
Substance Nomenclature:
0 (Dental Implants)
D1JT611TNE (Titanium)
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20200827 Date Completed: 20210419 Latest Revision: 20210703
Update Code:
20240105
PubMed Central ID:
PMC8247288
DOI:
10.1002/JPER.20-0222
PMID:
32846005
Czasopismo naukowe
Background: To evaluate whether buccal bone thickness (BBT), implant diameter, and abutment/crown material influence the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to determine the buccal bone level at titanium implants.
Methods: Two implant beds (i.e., narrow and standard diameter) were prepared in each of 36 porcine bone blocks. The implant beds were positioned at a variable distance from the buccal bone surface; thus, resulting in three BBT groups (i.e., >0.5 to 1.0; >1.0 to 1.5; >1.5 to 2.0 mm). In half of the blocks, a buccal bone dehiscence of random extent ("depth") was created and implants were mounted with different abutment/crown material (i.e., titanium abutments with a metal-ceramic crown and zirconia abutments with an all-ceramic zirconia crown). The distance from the implant shoulder to the buccal bone crest was measured on cross-sectional CBCT images and compared with the direct measurements at the bone blocks.
Results: While abutment/crown material and implant diameter had no effect on the detection accuracy of the buccal bone level at dental implants in CBCT scans, BBT had a significant effect. Specifically, when BBT was ≤1.0 mm, a dehiscence was often diagnosed although not present, that is, the sensitivity was high (95.8%), but the specificity (12.5%) and the detection accuracy (54.2%) were low. Further, the average measurement error of the distance from the implant shoulder to the buccal bone crest was 1.6 mm.
Conclusions: Based on the present laboratory study, BBT has a major impact on the correct diagnosis of the buccal bone level at dental titanium implants in CBCT images; in cases where the buccal bone is ≤1 mm thick, detection of the buccal bone level is largely inaccurate.
(© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Periodontology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Academy of Periodontology.)

Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies