Sirin Yigit, Horasan Sinan, Yaman Duygu, Basegmez Cansu, Tanyel Cem, Aral Ali, Guven Koray
Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral Surgery, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jul;70(7):1540-50. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.02.024.
The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic potentials and practical advantages of different imaging modalities in detecting bone defects around dental implants.
Crestal bone defects with sequentially larger diameters were randomly prepared around 100 implants that were inserted in bovine bone blocks. Conventional periapical radiography (PR), direct digital radiography (DDR), panoramic radiography (PANO), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and multislice computed tomography (MSCT) were performed for all specimens. The diagnostic accuracies of the devices, confidence of the answers, subjective image quality, defect visibility in planar orientations, and duration of diagnosis were analyzed based on the interpretations of 7 calibrated observers.
The agreement levels of intra- and interobserver scores were rated good. PR, DDR, and CBCT were mostly more accurate than PANO and MSCT (P < .05). Confidence levels were positively correlated with the defect size (ρ = 0.20, P < .01), and that of DDR was the highest (P < .05). The subjective image quality of PR and DDR was higher than that of CBCT, PANO, and MSCT (P < .05 for all comparisons). Axial-coronal-sagittal visibilities of the defects were higher for CBCT compared with MSCT (P < .05). The diagnostic time was shorter for DDR (P < .05) and longer for the tomographic systems (P < .05) than for the other devices.
DDR may provide a faster and more confident diagnostic option that is as accurate as PR in detecting peri-implant radiolucencies. CBCT has a comparable potential to these intraoral systems but with slower decision making and lower image quality, whereas PANO and MSCT become more reliable when bone defects have a diameter that is at least 1.5 mm larger than that of the implant.
本研究旨在比较不同成像方式在检测牙种植体周围骨缺损方面的诊断潜力和实际优势。
在植入牛骨块的100颗种植体周围随机制备直径依次增大的嵴顶骨缺损。对所有标本进行传统根尖片(PR)、直接数字化摄影(DDR)、全景片(PANO)、锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)和多层螺旋计算机断层扫描(MSCT)。基于7名经过校准的观察者的解读,分析了这些设备的诊断准确性、答案的可信度、主观图像质量、平面方向上缺损的可见性以及诊断持续时间。
观察者内和观察者间评分的一致性水平被评为良好。PR、DDR和CBCT大多比PANO和MSCT更准确(P < 0.05)。可信度水平与缺损大小呈正相关(ρ = 0.20,P < 0.01),DDR的可信度最高(P < 0.05)。PR和DDR的主观图像质量高于CBCT、PANO和MSCT(所有比较P < 0.05)。与MSCT相比,CBCT的缺损在轴位 - 冠状位 - 矢状位的可见性更高(P < 0.05)。DDR的诊断时间较短(P < 0.05),断层扫描系统的诊断时间较长(P < 0.05),比其他设备长。
DDR在检测种植体周围透射区方面可能提供一种快速且更具信心的诊断选择,其准确性与PR相当。CBCT与这些口腔内系统具有相当的潜力,但决策速度较慢且图像质量较低,而当骨缺损直径比种植体至少大1.5 mm时,PANO和MSCT变得更可靠。