Imaging evaluating of the implant/bone interface—an <i>in vitro</i> radiographic study

Vidor, Michele Machado; Liedke, Gabriela Salatino; Vizzotto, Mariana Boessio; Silveira, Heraldo Luís Dias da; Silveira, Priscila Fernanda da; Araújo, Cristiano Werner; Silveira, Heloísa Emília Dias da

doi:10.1259/dmfr.20160296

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 8 The extent of periodontitis is measured to indicate the treatment and monitor the treatment response. Bone loss can be measured on radiographs, 9 and mobility is measured via manual manipulation. 10 The degree of inflammation is subjective and is based on the color of the gingiva and the frequency of bleeding on probing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photoacoustic imaging of posterior periodontal pocket using a commercial hockey-stick transducer

Chen

Jin

et al. 2022

J. Biomed. Opt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photoacoustic imaging of posterior periodontal pocket using a commercial hockey-stick transducer

Chen

Jin

et al. 2022

J. Biomed. Opt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The studies used PR, PAN, MRI, CT, and CBCT, in Ti 12 13 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 and ZrO 2 12 13 23 36 43 implants. The descriptive characteristics of the studies are shown in Table 1 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of filters is a post-processing image manipulation that has yielded positive results in improving diagnostic performance in both Ti and ZrO 2 implants. 25 39 For ZrO 2 , Bayrak et al 23 found that the adaptive image noise optimiser filter with MAR improved interobserver agreement in the detection of bone defects. Another aspect that positively influenced diagnostic performance was the size of bone defects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of imaging examinations for peri-implant bone defects around titanium and zirconium dioxide implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging examinations for the detection of peri-implant bone defects and compared the diagnostic accuracy between titanium (Ti) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO 2 ) implants. Materials and Methods Six online databases were searched, and studies were selected based on eligibility criteria. The studies included in the systematic review underwent bias and applicability assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool and a random-effect meta-analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were constructed to compare the effect of methodological differences in relation to the variables of each group. Results The search strategy yielded 719 articles. Titles and abstracts were read and 61 studies were selected for full-text reading. Among them, 24 studies were included in this systematic review. Most included studies had a low risk of bias (QUADAS-2). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) presented sufficient data for quantitative analysis in ZrO 2 and Ti implants. The meta-analysis revealed high levels of inconsistency in the latter group. Regarding sROC curves, the area under the curve (AUC) was larger for the overall Ti group (AUC=0.79) than for the overall ZrO 2 group (AUC=0.69), but without a statistically significant difference between them. In Ti implants, the AUCs for dehiscence defects (0.73) and fenestration defects (0.87) showed a statistically significant difference. Conclusion The diagnostic accuracy of CBCT imaging in the assessment of peri-implant bone defects was similar between Ti and ZrO 2 implants, and fenestration was more accurately diagnosed than dehiscence in Ti implants.

show abstract

“…Choi JW et al (2011) confirmed that for a 3D x-ray, the use of CBCT (cone beam computed tomography-diagnostic aid used when the conventional x-rays fail as a diagnostic tool (Shah et al 2014)) should be preferred over a CT (computed tomography) image but it has a high radiation dose. According to Michele M Vidor et al (2017), radiographic image of the boneimplant interface is influenced by two factors, the radiographic system, and the processing filter employed. The results from this study are that conventional radiographs or digital images with application of high-pass filters such as "Caries2" and "Endo" could help enhance diagnosis on the implant-bone interface on intraoral radiographs so it could help too in the identification of different implant systems and hence aid in the identification of different implant systems.…”

Section: Aesthetic Biological Restoration Mechanical and Occlusion mentioning

confidence: 99%

Current technology for identifying dental implants: a narrative review

Saghiri

Freag²,

Fakhrzadeh

et al. 2021

Bull Natl Res Cent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This paper outlines the current status and mechanism for identifying dental implants, with emphasis on future direction and updated technology, and covers the existing factors influencing the identification of implant systems. Main body A search was performed on the current methods of identifying dental implants between January 2000 through Feb 2020 using online databases for articles published in English. The search was performed using the Google, Rutgers library, PubMed, MEDLINE databases via OVID using the following keywords: implant types identification by x-ray imaging, forensic identification of dental implant, surface types, threaded, non-threaded, software identification, recent technologies, which evaluated different methods in the identification of dental implants and its clinical importance for the dentist and the patient. Of the 387 articles found in initial search results, 10 met the inclusion criteria set for this review. These 10 studies were directly related to the identification of different implant systems. Many studies have indicated identifying dental implants as problematic due to many confounding factors, and the difficulty in finding the specific parts for the dental implant itself. The contribution of digital dentistry is critical. Factors like increasing number of implant manufacturers, dental tourism, and cost, make it difficult to detect and match dental implants by dentists during the chairside time. Conclusion These factors give rise to the need for a new system to help clinicians in decision making. Artificial intelligence seems to have shown potential to help in this case. However, detailed regulatory mechanisms are still needed for diagnosis and analysis.

show abstract

Imaging evaluating of the implant/bone interface—an in vitro radiographic study

Abstract: Conventional radiographs or digital radiographs with high-pass filters could help enhance diagnosis on implant-bone interface.

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

Photoacoustic imaging of posterior periodontal pocket using a commercial hockey-stick transducer

Photoacoustic imaging of posterior periodontal pocket using a commercial hockey-stick transducer

Diagnostic accuracy of imaging examinations for peri-implant bone defects around titanium and zirconium dioxide implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Current technology for identifying dental implants: a narrative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About