Comparison of changes in dental and bone radiographic densities in the presence of different soft-tissue simulators using pixel intensity and digital subtraction analyses

Evaluation of Short and Regular Implants after Prosthesis Placement in the Mandible: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial

“…Radiographic bone loss analysis is one of the most used methods to evaluate osseointegration and implant follow-up. 38 Here, the results of the radiographic measurements showed a significant increase in bone loss for conventional implants compared with short implants in all periods evaluated, but no statistical difference was found among T1, T2, and T3. Potential explanations for this bone loss are that the external hexagon connection installed did not present a good bacterial seal at the abutment-implant interface, 37 as well as due to the largest diameter of the short implants which parallel observations with longitudinal studies, in which the success rate was higher in wide platform implants when compared with smaller diameter implants.…”

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography contrast validation of an artificial periodontal phantom for use in endodontics

“…In our study, the increase of the thickness of the cortical bone substitute and the use of a soft-tissue simulator involved a reduction of the CNR between dentine and root lamina dura. De Molon et al showed equivalent results by comparing different thickness of soft-tissue simulators on dental and bone densities [29]. A significant influence on the density-level in alveolar bone but not in dental tissues was observed.…”

Evaluation of soft tissues simulant materials in cone beam computed tomography

“…6,7 Other studies have aimed to evaluate the influence of materials on the grey values in the dental and bone regions when acquiring two-dimensional images of dry jaws and to compare these values between the groups. 9,11 Although one study compared the radiographic images of a skull prior to soft tissue removal and with different simulant materials, 10 the thickness used for these materials was not the same as that of the original tissues. Therefore, these studies have some limitations, as they did not reproduce the original tissue characteristics, particularly the thickness.…”

“…The present study used piglet heads because their maxillomandibular structures are anatomically similar to those in human heads. 12 These fresh heads, with an Different from previous studies, which used two-dimensional radiographs, [6][7][8]10,11 the present study was aimed at CBCT images, which is a three-dimensional image modality that results in high quality images and thus contributes significantly to the diagnosis. Also, it has no geometrical limitations inherent in two-dimensional techniques.…”

“…2 Two-dimensional imaging studies have suggested the use of wax and water as soft tissue simulant materials. [6][7][8][9][10][11] However, none of these studies used a gold standard to evaluate these materials at the same thickness as that of the original tissue. Thus, these results can be questioned, and another methodology can be proposed to find materials that better simulate soft tissue and most closely resemble the clinical reality in oral radiology.…”