Is cone beam computed tomography accurate for postoperative evaluation of implants? An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for evaluation of the bone-implant interface in comparison with periapical radiography.

STUDY DESIGN

Titanium implants were inserted in 74 bovine rib blocks in intimate contact with bone walls and with a gap of 0.125 mm (simulating failure in the osseointegration process). Periapical radiographs were taken with conventional film, and CBCT scans were acquired with i-CAT (0.2 mm and 0.125 mm voxel) and Kodak (0.2 mm and 0.076 mm voxel) units. Three examiners evaluated the images using a 5-point scale. Diagnostic accuracy was analyzed through sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Intra- and interexaminer agreements were analyzed through Kendall's concordance test.

RESULTS

Intra- and interexaminer agreements showed satisfactory results. The greatest accuracy was observed with conventional radiography (AUC = 0.963; CI 95% = 0.891-0.993). I-CAT 0.125-mm images showed good accuracy (AUC = 0.885; CI 95% = 0.790-0.947), with no significant difference compared with conventional radiography. Kodak images had high specificity and low sensitivity, presenting more false-negative results.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional radiography showed the highest accuracy for assessment of the bone-implant interface. However, CBCT (i-CAT; 0.125-mm voxel), if available or if performed for preoperative assessment of another implant site, may provide similar accuracy.

Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods

OBJECTIVE:

To assess enamel surface under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after resin removal and enamel polishing procedures following brackets debonding, as well as compare the time required for these procedures.

METHODS:

A total of 180 deciduous bovine incisors were used. The enamel surface of each tooth was prepared and brackets were bonded with light cured Transbond XT composite resin. Brackets were removed in a testing machine. The samples were randomized and equally distributed into nine groups according to the resin removal and polishing technique: Group 1, 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed; Group 2, 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed followed by a sequence of 4 Sof-lex polishing discs (3M); Group 3, 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed followed by Enhance tips (Dentsply). All groups were subdivided into (a) unpolished; (b) polished with aluminum oxide paste; and (c) polished with water slurry of fine pumice. Subsequently, the enamel surface was assessed and statistical analysis was carried out.

RESULTS:

There were statistically significant differences in enamel roughness and removal time among all groups. Groups 3a, 3b and 3c appeared to be the most efficient methods of removing resin with low damages to enamel. Groups 2a, 2b and 2c were the most time consuming procedures, and Group 2a caused more damages to enamel.

CONCLUSION:

The suggested protocol for resin removal is the 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed followed by Enhance tips and polishing with aluminum oxide paste. This procedure seems to produce less damages and is less time consuming.