LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,113
تعداد مقالات10,208
تعداد مشاهده مقاله40,780,108
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,803,917
Akheshteh, V, Eskandarloo, A, Saati, S, Jamalpour, M R, Mohammad Gholi Mezerji, N. (1399). Efficacy of Periapical Radiography and Three Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Systems for Detection of Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects: An in- Vitro Study. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10(6), 751-760. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2008-1162
V Akheshteh; A Eskandarloo; S Saati; M R Jamalpour; N Mohammad Gholi Mezerji. "Efficacy of Periapical Radiography and Three Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Systems for Detection of Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects: An in- Vitro Study". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10, 6, 1399, 751-760. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2008-1162
Akheshteh, V, Eskandarloo, A, Saati, S, Jamalpour, M R, Mohammad Gholi Mezerji, N. (1399). 'Efficacy of Periapical Radiography and Three Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Systems for Detection of Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects: An in- Vitro Study', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10(6), pp. 751-760. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2008-1162
Akheshteh, V, Eskandarloo, A, Saati, S, Jamalpour, M R, Mohammad Gholi Mezerji, N. Efficacy of Periapical Radiography and Three Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Systems for Detection of Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects: An in- Vitro Study. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1399; 10(6): 751-760. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2008-1162

Efficacy of Periapical Radiography and Three Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Systems for Detection of Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects: An in- Vitro Study

Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
مقاله 55، دوره 10، شماره 6، بهمن و اسفند 2020، صفحه 751-760    اصل مقاله (1.36 M)
نوع مقاله: Original Research
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2008-1162
نویسندگان
V Akheshteh1؛ A Eskandarloo* 2؛ S Saati3؛ M R Jamalpour4؛ N Mohammad Gholi Mezerji5
1MSD, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2MSD, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
3MSD, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
4MSD, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
5PhD, Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
چکیده
Background: Early detection of peri-implant bone defects is highly important because these defects eventually lead to gingival recession, bone loss and implant failure.
Objective: This study aimed to assess and compare the efficacy of periapical radiography and three CBCT systems for the detection of peri-implant dehiscence defects.
Material and Methods: In this vitro study, 124 titanium implants were placed in bovine ribs. The bone pieces were then mounted in boxes in the form of mandible and red dental wax was used to simulate the soft tissue. Crestal bone defects with 2, 3, and 4 mm depth were created in the ribs using a round bur. Periapical and CBCT images were then obtained. Images were investigated by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists twice with a two-week interval. The results were analyzed using chi-square, Kappa coefficient, Cochrane’s Q and McNemar tests as well as the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Results: The two observers showed good agreement in detection of sound and defective samples on periapical radiographs and CBCT scans. The level of agreement was low in detection of two samples with 2 mm defects on CBCT scans taken with Planmeca and NewTom 3G systems at the time of second assessment. NewTom 3G had the highest sensitivity (68.9%, 74.2% and 86.3%, respectively) and specificity (100% for all three) compared to other systems for detection of 2, 3 and 4 mm crestal bone defects.
Conclusion: The inter-observer agreement increased with increase in depth of defects. NewTom 3G had the highest accuracy for detection of crestal bone defects.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Surgical Wound Dehiscence؛ Cone Beam Computed Tomography؛ Radiography, Dental
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Juodzbalys G, Kubilius M. Clinical and Radiological Classification of the Jawbone Anatomy in Endosseous Dental Implant Treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2013;4(2):e2. doi: 10.5037/jomr.2013.4202. PubMed PMID: 24422030. PubMed PMCID: PMC3886111.
  2. De-Azevedo-V SL, Vaconcelos KD. Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence with the use of two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of cone-beam computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115(11):121-6. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.10.003. PubMed PMID: 23217543.
  3. Jones AA, Cochran DL. Consequences of implant design. Dent Clin North Am. 2006;50:339-60. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2006.03.008. PubMed PMID: 16818019.
  4. Eskandarloo A, Saati S, Purabdolahi Ardakani M, Jamalpour M, Mezerji N, Akheshteh V. Diagnostic accuracy of three cone beam computed tomography systems and periapical radiography for detection of fenestration around dental implants. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(3)4:376-81. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_103_18. PubMed PMID: 30166830. PubMed PMCID: PMC6104358.
  5. Winkler S, Morris HF, Spray JR. Stability of implants and natural teeth as determined by the Periotest over 60 months of function. J Oral Implantol. 2001;27:198-203. doi: 10.1563/1548-1336(2001)0272.3.CO;2. PubMed PMID: 12500879.
  6. King GN, Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 2002;73:1111-17. doi: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.10.1111. PubMed PMID: 12416767.
  7. Chung WE, Rubenstein JE, Phillips KM, Raigrodski AJ. Outcomes assessment of patients treated with osseointegrated dental implants at the University of Washington Graduate Prosthodontic Program, 1998 to 2000. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(5):927-35. PubMed PMID: 19865634.
  8. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62:567-72. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90081-4. PubMed PMID: 2691661.
  9. Kamburgolu K, Gulsahi A, Genç Y, Paksoy CS. A comparison of peripheral marginal bone loss at dental implants measured with conventional intraoral film and digitized radiographs. J Oral Implantol. 2012;38:211-19. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-09-00147. PubMed PMID: 20712442.
  10. Bagis N, Kolsuz ME. Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of periodontal defects: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(64):1-8. doi: 10.1186/s12903-015-0046-2. PubMed PMID: 26016804. PubMed PMCID: PMC4446848.
  11. Eskandarloo A, Arabi R, Bidgoli M, Yousefi F, Poorolajal J. Association between Marginal Bone Loss and Bone Quality at Dental Implant Sites Based on Evidence from Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Radiographs. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019;10(1):36-41. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_185_18. PubMed PMID: 32015639. PubMed PMCID: PMC6974999.
  12. Razavi T, Palmer RM, Davies J. Accuracy of measuring the cortical bone thickness adjacent to dental implants using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Impl. 2010;21(5):718-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01905.x. PubMed PMID: 20636726.
  13. Shokri A , Eskandarloo A, Norouzi M, Majidi G, Aliyaly A. Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography scans with high- and low-resolution modes for the detection of root perforations. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018;48(1):11-9. doi: 10.5624/isd.2018.48.1.11. PubMed PMID: 29581945. PubMed PMCID: PMC5863015.
  14. De Smet E, Jacobs R, Gijbels F, Naert I. The accuracy and reliability of radiographic methods for the assessment of marginal bone level around oral implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31(3):176-81. doi: 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600694. PubMed PMID: 12058265.
  15. Wakoh M, Harada T, Otonari T, Otonari-Yamamoto M, Ohkubo M, Kousuge Y, et al. Reliability of linear distance measurement for dental implant length with standardized periapical radiographs. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2006;47(3):105-15. doi: 10.2209/tdcpublication.47.105. PubMed PMID: 17344618.
  16. Shokri A, Jamalpour M, Eskandarloo A, Godiny M, Amini P, Khavid A. Performance of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Systems in Visualizing the Cortical Plate in 3D Image Reconstruction: An In Vitro Study. Open Dent J. 2018;12:586-95. doi: 10.2174/1874210601812010586. PubMed PMID: 30288182. PubMed PMCID: PMC6142658.
  17. Dehghani M, Montazer Lotf Elahi H. Comparing the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography,digital intraoral radiography and conventional intraoral radiography in the measurement of periodontal bone defects. J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci. 2016;1(1):34-9. doi: 10.29252/jrdms.1.1.34.
  18. Patel S, Kanagasingam S, Mannocci F. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in endodontics. Dent Update. 2009;37(6):373-9. doi: 10.12968/denu.2010.37.6.373. PubMed PMID: 20929151.
  19. Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A. Accuracy of cone beam dental CT, intraoral digital and conventional film radiography for the detection of periapical lesions. An ex vivo study in pig jaws. Clin Oral Investig. 2007;11(1):101-6. doi: 10.1007/s00784-006-0078-8. PubMed PMID: 17048029.
  20. Takeshita WM, Iwaki LCV, Da Silva MC, Tonin RH. Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of conventional and digital periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and cone-beam computed tomography in the assessment of alveolar bone loss. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014;5(3):318-23. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.137930. PubMed PMID: 25191066. PubMed PMCID: PMC4147806.
  21. Saati S, Kaveh F, Yarmohammadi SH. Comparison of Cone-Beam computed tomography and Multi slice computed tomography image quality of human dried mandible using 10 anatomical landmarks. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(2):13-6. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/20637.9253. PubMed PMID: 28384972. PubMed PMCID: PMC5376866.
  22. Kasraei SH, Shokri A, Poorolajal J, Khajeh S, Rahmani H. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and Intraoral radiography in detection of recurrent caries under composite restorations. Braz Dent J. 2017;28(1):85-91. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201701248. PubMed PMID: 28301024.
  23. Van Dessel J, Nicolielo L, Huang Y, Coudyzer W, Salmon B, Lambrichts I, Jacobs R. Accuracy and reliability of different cone-beam computed tomography(CBCT)devices for structural analysis of alveolar bone in comparison with multislice CT and Micro-ct. Eur J Oral implantol. 2017;10(1):95-105. PubMed PMID: 28327698.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,210
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 524


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب