Detection of peri‐implant bone defects with different radiographic techniques – a human cadaver study

Kühl, Sebastian; Zürcher, S; Zitzmann, Nicola U.; Filippi, Andreas; Payer, Michael; Dagassan-Berndt, Dorothea

doi:10.1111/clr.12619

Cited by 59 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These cases were significantly more associated to peri-implantitis (65% positive predictive value) compared to cases that oral hygiene could be properly carried out. 13 Whereas IR may show a resolution of 10-to 25-line pairs per mm, panoramic images shows 3-to 5-and CBCT only 1-to 2-line pairs. [29][30][31] 4.3 | Reliability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to assess peri-implantitis defects Differences in sensitivity and specificity have been found assessing peri-implant bone defects with IR, CT and CBCT images; some of these differences might be related to resolution, presence of artifacts and location within the jaws.…”

Section: Agreements and Disagreements With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20 Recent studies have validated such findings. Indeed, the highest and lowest likelihood ratios were found for IR, indicating the best performance for IR in detecting peri-implant bone defects while the lowest specificity was found with CT. 13 It is worth noting that CBCT accuracy is impaired by artifacts caused by metallic implants 32 where blooming artifacts around implants lead to a radiolucent shadow surrounding implants. 13 Whereas IR may show a resolution of 10-to 25-line pairs per mm, panoramic images shows 3-to 5-and CBCT only 1-to 2-line pairs.…”

Section: Agreements and Disagreements With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 This is consistent with a recent canine study that demonstrated that peri-implantitis evolve in a more severe and aggressive fashion in the buccal sites compared to the lingual counterparts. 13 The use of intraoral radiography is the most common in daily practice, but it is limited to two planes and superimposition may mask marginal bone levels. 10,12 The use of radiographic techniques allows to establish the morphology of the peri-implant bone tissues, either with twodimensional radiographs like intraoral radiology (IR) or panoramic images either with three-dimensional images as computer tomography (CT) and cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Morphology and severity of peri‐implantitis bone defects

Monje

Pons

Ínsua

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

112

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Peri-implant defect morphology has shown to potentially impact upon the reconstructive outcomes for the management of peri-implantitis. Given the role that defect morphology plays upon the decision-making in the treatment of peri-implantitis, the present study aimed at assessing the morphology and severity of peri-implantitis bone defects and to insight on the patient-, implant-and site-related variables associated to these. Material and Methods:A cone-beam computed tomography study was carried out to classify peri-implantitis defects according to the type of defect, number of remaining bony walls and severity according to the extension of vertical bone loss.Three major defect categories were proposed: class I-infraosseous; class II-horizontal;class III-combined of class I and II. These were then subclassified into: (a) dehiscence; (b) 2/3-wall; and (c) circumferential-type defect. According to the severity the defects were further subclassified into: A: advanced; M: moderate; and S: slight. In addition, 20 site-, implant-, and patient-related variables were analyzed by generalized estimating equations (GEEs) of multilevel logistic regression models.Results: Based on an a priori power calculation, 332 implants were screened in 47 peri-implantitis patients. Of these, 158 peri-implantitis implants were eligible. The most prevalent defect morphology type was class Ib (55%) followed by class Ia (16.5%), and class IIIb (13.9%). On the contrary, the less frequent defect was class II (1.9%). The most frequent degree of severity was M (50.6%) with S (10.1%) being the least prevalent. Buccal bone loss was significantly greater compared to the other bony walls in class I and class III defects. Age was associated with the type of defect.Age and smoking habit were associated with the morphology of the defects, while smoking habit, type of prosthesis and distance to adjacent implant were associated with the severity of the defects (vertical bone loss).Conclusion: Peri-implantitis defects frequently course with an infraosseous component and often with buccal bone loss. Certain patient-, implant-, and site-specific variables are related with defect morphology and severity. However, morphological patterns for periimplantitis bone defects could not be proven (NCT NCT03777449).K E Y W O R D S alveolar bone, dental implants, diagnostic, implant stability, peri-implantitis, peri-implant mucositis

show abstract

Section: Agreements and Disagreements With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Agreements and Disagreements With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Morphology and severity of peri‐implantitis bone defects

Monje

Pons

Ínsua

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

112

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent study by Kühl et al [51] evaluated two- and three-dimensional radiographic techniques to determine peri-implantitis-related bone loss around dental implants. The authors compared the performance of detecting different peri-implant bone defects in IR, PR, CBCT, and computed tomography (CT).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors compared the performance of detecting different peri-implant bone defects in IR, PR, CBCT, and computed tomography (CT). According to the study, IR should still be recommended as a favourable method for evaluating bone loss around dental implants, while CT demonstrated the lowest performance in detecting peri-implant bone defects [51]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Principles of Peri-Implantitis: a Systematic Review and Guidelines for Peri-Implantitis Diagnosis Proposal

Ramanauskaitė¹,

Juodžbalys

2016

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo review and summarize the literature concerning peri-implantitis diagnostic parameters and to propose guidelines for peri-implantitis diagnosis.Material and MethodsAn electronic literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE databases for articles published between 2011 and 2016. Sequential screening at the title/abstract and full-text levels was performed. Systematic reviews/guidelines of consensus conferences proposing classification or suggesting diagnostic parameters for peri-implantitis in the English language were included. The review was recorded on PROSPERO system with the code CRD42016033287.ResultsThe search resulted in 10 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Four were papers from consensus conferences, two recommended diagnostic guidelines, three proposed classification of peri-implantitis, and one suggested an index for implant success. The following parameters were suggested to be used for peri-implantitis diagnosis: pain, mobility, bleeding on probing, probing depth, suppuration/exudate, and radiographic bone loss. In all of the papers, different definitions of peri-implantitis or implant success, as well as different thresholds for the above mentioned clinical and radiographical parameters, were used. Current evidence rationale for the diagnosis of peri-implantitis and classification based on consecutive evaluation of soft-tissue conditions and the amount of bone loss were suggested.ConclusionsCurrently there is no single uniform definition of peri-implantitis or the parameters that should be used. Rationale for diagnosis and prognosis of peri-implantitis as well as classification of the disease is proposed.

show abstract

Peri‐Implant Diseases

2018

Diseases and Conditions in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detection of peri‐implant bone defects with different radiographic techniques – a human cadaver study

Abstract: IR should still be recommended as favourable method evaluating bone loss around dental implants, while CT demonstrated the lowest performance in detecting peri-implant bone defects.

Cited by 59 publications

References 16 publications

Morphology and severity of peri‐implantitis bone defects

Morphology and severity of peri‐implantitis bone defects

Diagnostic Principles of Peri-Implantitis: a Systematic Review and Guidelines for Peri-Implantitis Diagnosis Proposal

Peri‐Implant Diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About