Peri-implant assessment via cone beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography: an ex vivo study

Evaluation of the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the detection of peri-implant fenestration

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of the bone supporting the implant is crucial. Early detection of bone defects around the implant can prevent the loss of bone support that ultimately leads to the loss of the implant. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to check the accuracy of CBCT in detecting peri-implant fenestrations around the implant.

MATERIALS & METHODS

In this laboratory study, healthy beef ribs were used. The ribs were divided into three groups of 12 (control group, 1-2 mm fenestration group, and 2-3 mm fenestration group). The blocks were cut to a length of 20 mm and 36 osteotomies with dimensions of 4 × 12 mm were made by the periodontist in order to place the implant in these bone blocks. Then the titanium implant was placed in the holes and the initial scan was performed with CBCT. In the second group, fenestration-like lesions were created on the same buccal side at a distance of 10 mm from the crest with a diameter of 1-2 mm and in the third group with a diameter of 2-3 mm, and the CBCT scan was performed again with the same parameters. Two radiologists evaluated the images twice for the presence and absence of fenestration.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between direct measurements and CBCT in the fenestration group of 1-2 mm (p < 0.05), but there was a significant difference between direct measurements and CBCT in the fenestration group of 2-3 mm and underestimation was observed in CBCT measurements.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study showed that CBCT radiography has a higher accuracy in measuring the fenestration around the implant with a smaller diameter and has an acceptable diagnostic value in detecting bone loss around the implant.

Cone Beam Computed Tomography Imaging in Dental Implants: A Primer for Clinical Radiologists

With the introduction of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) into dentistry in the 1990s, radiologists have become more frequently involved in dental implant planning. This article describes the information that should be included in a radiology report to achieve a successful implantation. The justification to use CBCT during the preoperative planning phase is based on the need to evaluate patient-specific anatomy in detail (general condition of the jaw, bone quantity, and bone quality), the application of more advanced surgical techniques (maxillary sinus augmentation procedure, zygomatic implants), and the integrated presurgical planning and virtual patient approach. Postoperatively, CBCT is used when implant retrieval is anticipated and two-dimensional radiographs have not provided sufficient information, for evaluation of graft healing, or to assess complications, mostly related to neurovascular trauma.

Detection of peri-implant bone defects using cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography with parallel and oblique projection

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with that of parallel (PPA) and oblique projected periapical (OPA) radiography for the detection of different types of peri-implant bone defects.

Materials and Methods

Forty implants inserted into bovine rib blocks were used. Thirty had standardized bone defects (10 each of angular, fenestration, and dehiscence defects), and 10 were defect-free controls. CBCT, PPA, and OPA images of the samples were acquired. The images were evaluated twice by each of 2 blinded observers regarding the presence or absence and the type of the defects. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were determined for each radiographic technique. The 3 modalities were compared using the Fisher exact and chi-square tests, with P<0.05 considered as statistical significance.

Results

High inter-examiner reliability was observed for the 3 techniques. Angular defects were detected with high sensitivity and specificity by all 3 modalities. CBCT and OPA showed similar AUC and sensitivity in the detection of fenestration defects. In the identification of dehiscence defects, CBCT showed the highest sensitivity, followed by OPA and PPA, respectively. CBCT and OPA had a significantly greater ability than PPA to detect fenestration and dehiscence defects (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The application of OPA radiography in addition to routine PPA imaging as a radiographic follow-up method for dental implantation greatly enhances the visualization of fenestration and dehiscence defects. CBCT properly depicted all defect types studied, but it involves a relatively high dose of radiation and cost.