Top

International Journal of Implant Dentistry

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Bone Defect | Research

Comparison of the different voxel sizes in the estimation of peri-implant fenestration defects using cone beam computed tomography: an ex vivo study

Authors: Mehmet Hakan Kurt, Nilsun Bağış, Cengiz Evli, Cemal Atakan, Kaan Orhan

Published in: International Journal of Implant Dentistry | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

To examine the influence of voxel sizes to detect of peri-implant fenestration defects on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images.

Materials and methods

This study performed with three sheep heads both maxilla and mandible and two types of dental implant type 1 zirconium implant (Zr⁴⁰) (n = 6) and type 2 titanium implant (Ti²²) (n = 10). A total of 14 peri-implant fenestrations (8 buccal surfaces, 6 palatal/lingual surface) were created while 18 surfaces (8 buccal, 10 palatal/lingual) were free of fenestrations. Three observers have evaluated the images of fenestration at each site. Images obtained with 0.75 mm³, 0.100 mm³, 0.150 mm³, 0.200 mm³, and 0.400 mm³ voxel sizes. For intra- and inter-observer agreements for each voxel size, Kappa coefficients were calculated.

Results

Intra- and inter-observer kappa values were the highest for 0.150 mm³, and the lowest in 0.75 mm³ and 0.400 mm³ voxel sizes for all types of implants. The highest area under the curve (AUC) values were found higher for the scan mode of 0.150 mm³, whereas lower AUC values were found for the voxel size for 0.400 mm³. Titanium implants had higher AUC values than zirconium with the statistical significance for all voxel sizes (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusion

A voxel size of 0.150 mm³ can be used to detect peri-implant fenestration bone defects. CBCT is the most reliable diagnostic tool for peri-implant fenestration bone defects.

Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;16:1–132.

Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. A long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5:347–59.PubMed

Jemt T, Chai J, Harnett J, Heath MR, Hutton JE, Johns RB, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, et al. A 5-year prospective multicenter follow-up report on overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:291–8.PubMed

Niinomi M. Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloy. Mat Sci Eng A. 1998;243:231–6.

Wataha JC. Materials for endosseous dental implants. J Oral Rehabil. 1996;23:79–90.PubMed

Sykaras N, Lacopino AM, Marker VA, Triplett RG, Woody RD. Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: Their effect on osseointegration. A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:675–90.PubMed

Pieralli S, Kohal RJ, Lopez Hernandez E, Doerken S, Spies BC. Osseointegration of zirconium dental implants in animal investigations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2017;34:171–82.PubMed

Pieralli S, Kohal RJ, Jung RE, Vach K, Spies BC. Clinical outcomes of zirconium dental implants: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2017;96:38–46.PubMed

Sanz-Martin I, Sanz-Sanchez I, Carrillo de Albornoz A, Figuero E, Sanz M. Effects of modified abutment characteristics on peri-implant soft tissue health: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;29:118–29.

10.

Jones AA, Cochran DL. Consequences of implant design. Dent Clin N Am. 2006;50:339–60.PubMed

11.

Lekholm U, Zarb G. Patient selection and preparation. DMFR. 2013;14:40–58.

12.

de Azevedo-Vaz SL, Vasconcelos Kde F, Neves FS, Melo SL, Campos PS, Haiter-Neto F, et al. Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence with the use of two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of a cone-beam computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115:121–7.

13.

Haghgoo JM, Shokri A, Khodadoustan A, Khoshhal M, Rabienejad N, Farhadian M. Comparison the accuracy of the cone-beam computed tomography with digital direct intraoral radiography, in assessment of periodontal osseous lesions. Avicenna J Dent Res. 2014;6:1–6.

14.

Schliephake H, Wichmann M, Donnerstag F, Vogt S. Imaging of periimplant bone levels of implants with buccal bone defects. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14:193–200.PubMed

15.

Kavadella A, Karayiannis A, Nicopoulou-Karayianni K. Detectability of experimental peri-implant cancellous bone lesions using conventional and direct digital radiography. Aust Dent J. 2006;51:180–6.PubMed

16.

Mengel R, Kruse B, Flores-de-Jacoby L. Digital volume tomography in the diagnosis of peri-implant defects: an in vitro study on native pig mandibles. J Periodontol. 2006;77:1234–41.PubMed

17.

Dave M, Davies J, Wilson R, Palmer R. A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri-implant bone defects. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:671–8.PubMed

18.

Bagis N, Kolsuz ME, Kursun S, Orhan K. Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of periodontal defects: An in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:64.PubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Takeshita WM, Vessoni Iwaki LC, Da Silva MC, Tonin RH. Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of conventional and digital periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and cone-beam computed tomography in the assessment of alveolar bone loss. Contemp Clin Den. 2014;5:318–23.

20.

Angelopoulos C, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. A comparison of maxillofacial CBCT and medical CT. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2012;20:1–17.PubMed

21.

Corpas Ldos S, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, Huang Y, Naert I, Duyck J. Peri-implant bone tissue assessment by comparing the outcome of intra oral radiograph and cone beam computed tomography analyses to the histological standard. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:492–9.PubMed

22.

Sirin Y, Horasan S, Yaman D, Basegmez C, Tanyel C, Aral A, et al. Detection of crestal radiolucencies around dental implants: an in vitro,, experimental study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:1540–50.PubMed

23.

Kamburoğlu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Eren H, Yüksel S, Paksoy CS. Assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant and periodontal defects using a cone beam CT system with and without the application of metal artifact reduction mode. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130176.

24.

Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:265–73.PubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Schulze RK, Berndt D, d’Hoedt B. On cone-beam computed tomography artifacts induced by titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:100–7.PubMed

26.

Sancho-Puchades M, Hämmerle CH, Benic GI. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconium dioxide implants in cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:1222–8.PubMed

27.

Steiger-Ronay V, Krcmaric Z, Schmidlin PR, Sahrmann P, Wiedemeier DB, Benic GI. Assessment of peri-implant defects at titanium and zirconium dioxide implants by means of periapical radiographs and cone beam computed tomography: an in-vitro examination. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:1195–201.PubMed

28.

Liedke GS, Spin-Neto R, da Silveira HED, Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A. Factors affecting the possibility to detect buccal bone condition around dental implants using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1082–8.PubMed

29.

Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the international congress of oral implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent. 2012;21:78–86.PubMed

30.

Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26:813–20.PubMed

31.

Jacob C. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.

32.

Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett. 2006;27:861–74.

33.

Enhos S, Uysal T, Yagci A, Veli I, Ucar FI, Ozer T. Dehiscence and fenestration in patients with different vertical growth patterns assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:868–74.PubMed

34.

Leung CC, Palomo L, Griffith R, Hans MG. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for measuring alveolar bone height and detecting bony dehiscences and fenestrations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137:109–19.

35.

Blanco J, Alonso A, Sanz M. Long-term results and survival rate of implants treated with guided bone regeneration: a 5-year case series prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16:294–301.PubMed

36.

Kolsuz ME, Bagis N, Orhan K, Avsever H, Demiralp KO. Comparison of the influence of FOV sizes and different voxel resolutions for the assessment of periodontal defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150070.

37.

Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol. 2006;77:1261–6.PubMed

38.

Yagci A, Veli I, Uysal T, Ucar FI, Ozer T, Enhos S. Dehiscence and fenestration in skeletal Class I, II, and III malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:67–74.PubMed

39.

Noujeim M, Prihoda T, Langlais R, Nummikoski P. Evaluation of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography in the detection of simulated interradicular bone lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:156–62.PubMed

40.

Ganguly R, Ramesh A, Pagni S. The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in cone-beam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016;46:93–101.PubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Librizzi ZT, Tadinada AS, Valiyaparambil JV, Lurie AG, Mallya SM. Cone-beam computed tomography to detect erosions of the temporomandibular joint: Effect of field of view and voxel size on diagnostic efficacy and effective dose. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140:25–30.

42.

Baltacioglu İH, Eren H, Yavuz Y, Kamburoglu K. Diagnostic accuracy of different display types in detection of recurrent caries under restorations by using CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160099.

43.

Haiter-Neto F, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography scans compared with intraoral image modalities for detection of caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:18–22.PubMed

44.

Hekmatian E, Jafari-Pozve N, Khorrami L. The effect of voxel size on the measurement of mandibular thickness in cone-beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2014;11:544–8.

45.

Benic GI, Sancho-Puchades M, Jung RE, Deyhle H, Hammerle CH. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium dental implants in cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:378–83.PubMed

46.

Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, Tsiklakis K, SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(Suppl A100):94–99.

47.

Bagis N, Eren H, Kolsuz ME, Kurt MH, Avsever H, Orhan K. Comparison of the burr and chemically induced periodontal defects using different field-of-view sizes and voxel resolutions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;125:260–7.PubMed

48.

Demirturk Kocasarac H, Ustaoglu G, Bayrak S, et al. Evaluation of artifacts generated by titanium, zirconium, and titanium-zirconium alloy dental implants on MRI, CT, and CBCT images: A phantom study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019;127:535–44.PubMed

49.

Kim DS, Rashsuren O, Kim EK. Conversion coefficients for the estimation of effective dose in cone-beam CT. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44:21–9.PubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Gerlach NL, Meijer GJ, Borstlap WA, Bronkhorst EM, Bergé SJ, Maal TJJ. Accuracy of bone surface size and cortical layer thickness measurements using cone beam computerized tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:793–7.PubMed

51.

Bayrak S, Orhan K, Kursun Çakmak ES, Görürgöz C, Odabaşı O, Yilmaz D, Atakan C. Evaluation of a metal artifact reduction algorithm and an optimization filter in the estimation of peri-implant dehiscence defects by using cone beam computed tomography: an in-vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2020.02.005.

52.

Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. Reduction of scatter-induced image noise in cone-beam CT: effect of field of view size and position. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016;121:188–95.PubMed

53.

Vasconcelos KF, Codari M, Queiroz PM, et al. The performance of metal artifact reduction algorithms in cone beam computed tomography images considering the effects of materials, metal positions, and fields of view. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019;127(1):71–6.PubMed

54.

Vasconcelos TV, Bechara BB, McMahan CA, Freitas DQ, Noujeim M. Evaluation of artifacts generated by zirconium implants in cone-beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;123:265–72.PubMed

Title: Comparison of the different voxel sizes in the estimation of peri-implant fenestration defects using cone beam computed tomography: an ex vivo study
Authors: Mehmet Hakan Kurt
Nilsun Bağış
Cengiz Evli
Cemal Atakan
Kaan Orhan
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Bone Defect
Digital Volume Tomography
Digital Volume Tomography
Published in: International Journal of Implant Dentistry / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 2198-4034
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00254-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison of the different voxel sizes in the estimation of peri-implant fenestration defects using cone beam computed tomography: an ex vivo study

Abstract

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Effects of implant thread design on primary stability—a comparison between single- and double-threaded implants in an artificial bone model

Effects of surface sub-micrometer topography following oxalic acid treatment on bone quantity and quality around dental implants in rabbit tibiae

Calcium channel blocker induced gingival enlargement following implant placement in a fibula free flap reconstruction of the mandible: a case report

New bone ingrowth into β-TCP/HA graft activated with argon plasma: a histomorphometric study on sinus lifting in rabbits

Utilising the nasal aperture for template stabilisation for guided surgery in the atrophic maxilla

Efficacy of low-dose local clindamycin in different times for microbial decontamination of autogenous particulate bone graft