Introduction
Methodology of bibliographic research
Results
Autor | Study model and number of implants used | Analised factor | Reference or comparative measure | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Schriber et al. [16] | In vitro Angle of the mandible of six fresh defrosted pig jaws Implants 12 (6 test group) Ti, ti-zr or zro2 | Buccal peri-implant bone defects was created as a dehiscence: 3 mm width 5 mm height 1/2 mm depth (with abutment) | Macroscopic defect measurement | The linear measurements of peri-implant defect were underestimated by < 1 mm on average CBCT showed high diagnostic accuracy for peri-implant b one defect detection Low dose protocols could be a promising imaging modality |
George Pelekos et al. [3] | In vitro Porcine rib bone Implants 36 (12 implants for each type of defect) | 4wall defect with buccal dehiscence (diameter 6,5 mm) (depth 6 mm) 3wall circumferential defect With buccal Dehiscence (depth 4 mm) buccal dehiscence (depth 4 mm) | Macroscopic defect measurement Fourteen masked examiners evaluated 324 pas and 108 cbct images | Discrepancy to real value < 1 mm The overall diagnostic accuracy of cbct was high (> 96%) for all types of defects Cone beam computed tomography showed better diagnostic accuracy in the detection of peri-implant defects that pa |
Schwindling et al. [13] | In vitro Bovine ribs Implants 24 titanium (with crown) | Width and depth 1–2 mm 4 wall 3 wall 2 wall 1 wall Acid conditioning of defects | Macroscopic defect measurement | Ld-cbct provides additional information regarding the geometry of defects than pa No significant difference was found between the two cbct techniques: high dose and low dose The following order was found for classification of the different defect types (sensitivity/specificity): hd-cbct (0.96/0.99) > ld-cbct (0.93/0.98) > ir (0.71/0.95) |
Hilgenfeld et al. [5] | In vitro Bovine ribs Implants 48 zirconia | 24 standardized defects (1, 2, 3, 4 wall) of 1 mm and 3 mm Acid conditioning of defects | -macroscopic defect measurement | Less sensitivity for 1-mm defects than for 3-mm defects High sensitivity for correct detection of defects type for cbct (0.81). Lowest sensitivity for ir (0.68) Ir can be recommended as the initial imaging method for evaluating peri-implant bone defects at zirconia implants |
Steiger-Ronay et al. [6] | In vitro In dental stone 18 titanium implants 18 zirconium dioxide implants | Defect groups: A-no peri-implant defect, B-1 mm width defect C-1.5 mm width defect Measurement of interproximal peri-implant bone defects | Macroscopic defect measurement (digital caliper) | Measurements in cbct always led to an overestimation of the defect width, reaching clinical relevance for zro2 implants Values (mm) for cbct: Titanium A 0.10 ± 0.11, B 0.26 ± 0.05, c 0.24 ± 0.08 Zirconium dioxide a 1.07 ± 0.06, b 0.64 ± 0.37, c 0.54 ± 0.17 Except for ti with defect a, measurements in pr were significantly more accurate in comparison to cbct (p ≤ 0.05) |
Pinheiro et al. [7] | In vitro Bovin ribs Implants 80 | Circumferencial-intrabony defects small: 3–4 mm deep, < 1 mm wide large: 5–6 mm deep, 1–2 mm wide Acid conditioning of defects | Macroscopic defect measurement (periodontal probe) | Cbct imaging at 90 kvp was associated with a significantly higher rate of detection of both small and large chemically simulated bone defects than pa or cbct at 75 kvp. Cbct imaging at 75 kvp proved better than pa for the detection of small defects |
González-Martín et al. [14] | In vitro Implants 60 | Surgically created dehiscence and fenestration defects | Macroscopic defect measurement (digital calipers) | All devices underestimated bone dimensions although differences among them were not significant Low accuracy in diagnosing peri-implant buccal bone. Accuracy was significantly influenced by buccal bone thickness, especially if < 1 mm, and in presence of peri-implant marginal defects Buccal bone ranged from 0.1 to 2.75 mm in thickness and was not visible in 68%, 63% and 60% of cases when using ct, i-cat and newtom, respectively |
Pinheiro, Scarfe et al. [15] | In vitro Bovine ribs Implants 80 | Circumferencial-intrabony defects: small: 3–4 mm deep < 1 mm wide Large: 5–6 mm deep 1–2 mm wide Acid conditioning of defects | Macroscopic defect measurement (periodontal probe) | Optimal detection of both chemically simulated peri circumferential implant crestal bone defects is achieved at the least radiation detriment using the smallest fov, the highest number of acquisition frames, and the smallest voxel |
Lutz Ritter et al. [12] | Histologic (in vivo) Dogs jaws 26 titanium Implants | Implants were placed in dog jaws with chronic type vestibular defects | Histomorphometry | Mesial bone level (mbl) and distal bone level (dbl) were underestimated by both cr and cbct Cbct overestimated vestibular bone levels but underestimated oral bone levels Vestibular and oral bone thicknesses were overestimated |
Kamburoglu et al. [8] | In vitro Human mandible (in human cadaver) 69 implants | Created on the buccal aspect of the marginal bone Dehiscence width and/or depth: Small: 1–3 mm Medium: 3–5 mm Large: > 5 mm | Macroscopic defect measurement (digital callipers) | Low sensitivity for detection of small dehiscence, and good for large dehiscence defects Good specificity For detection of all dehiscence defects No significant difference between 3 fov sizes ( each with voxel size < 0.2 mm) Depth, width and volume measurements of the defects from various cbct images correlated highly with physical measurements Significant correlations were found between physical and cbct measurements (p < 0.001) |
Kamburoglu et al. [9] | In vitro Edentulous mandibles (human cadaver) Implants 42 | Dehiscence defects: 3–4 mm deep 3–4 mm wide | Macroscopic defect measurement (digital callipers) | Poor diagnostic accuracy of cbct for dehiscence detection Metal artefact reduction mode did not improve diagnostic accuracy |
Corpas et al. [11] | Histologic (in vivo) In 10 minipigs (jaw) Implants 80 | Marginal peri-implant circumferencial-intrabony defects formed during implant surgery | Histomorphometry | Cbct and io images deviate, respectively, 1.20 and 1.17 mm from the histology regarding bone defects Moderate correlation of cbct and pr with histological defect depth |
Pinheiro et al. [15] | In vitro Bovine ribs Implants 80 | Circumferential- intrabony defects T1 = small: 3–4 mm deep, < 1 mm wide T2 = large: 5–6 mm deep, 1–2 mm wide Acid conditioning of defects | Macroscopic defect measurement (periodontal probe) | Fair diagnostic precision for small intrabony defects detection Good precision for detecting large intrabony defects Significant effects for observer type No significant effects for fov settings on diagnostic precision |
Fienitz et al. [2] | Histologic (in vivo) Mandible of foxhound dogs (animal model) Implants 24 | Implants placed into chronic, surgically created, boxlike intrabony defects: Wide: 6 mm md/6 mm vl Height: 1–8 mm | Histomorphometry | A minimum buccal bw of 0.5 mm was necessary for the detection of bone in radiology Cbct overestimated defects depth Greater deviation of cbct from histologic measurement was noted at defect with buccal bone thickness of < 0.5 mm than that at > 0.5 mm |
Vadiati Saberi et al. [1] | In vitro Bovine ribs Implants 40 | 10 angular defects (2–3 wall) (3 mm) 10 rectangular fenestration defects (10 mm depth) 10 dehiscence defects (3 mm apically from de crest) 10 defect control | Macroscopic defect measurement | The presence and type of all defects were correctly diagnosed using cbct In the identification of dehiscence defects, cbct showed the highest sensitivity Cbct and opa showed similar auc and sensitivity in the detection of fenestration defects |
Eskandarloo et al. [18] | In vitro Bovine ribs Implants 31 | Peri-implant fenestration (apical third region of implant) | Macroscopic defect measurement | Newtom had the highest sensitivity (75.81%) and specificity (100%) for detection of fenestration, however the differences are not significant |
Liedke et al. [10] | In vitro Pig jaw (bone blocks) Implants 6 | Buccal bone conspicuity | Macroscopic measurement | The thinner the buccal bone, the higher the risk that the condition of the buccal bone could not be detected. The use of lower resolution protocols increased the risk that buccal bone was not properly detected (OR Sc = 1.46, OR Cr = 2.00). For both CBCT units, increasing the image reconstruction thickness increased the conspicuity of buccal bone (OR Sc = 0.33, OR Cr = 0.31) |
Vanderstuyft et al. [20] | Ex-vivo Human cadaver heads Implants 44 | Buccal bone thickness | Macroscopic defect measurement | Due to an average blooming (artificial increase of implant diameter) percentage of 12–15%, the buccal peri‐implant bone thickness was underestimated by 0.3 mm on both CBCT devices. Immediately adjacent to the implant blooming area, a doubtful zone of about 0.45 mm was observed in which the buccal bone was not always visible. Buccal bone that was thick enough to fall outside this doubtful zone could always be visualized |
-
The main limitation of CBCT is the presence of metallic artefacts, that is, image flaws unrelated to the digitized object, caused by metals such as dental implants and amalgam restorations, or to a lesser extent, by root canal filling materials in endodontic treatments [9].
-
Adjustment of technical acquisition parameters in relation to image quality control and exposure to reduced artefacts (for example, mA and kVP) may have a direct impact on detecting relatively small deficiencies in the implant region [15].