Accuracy of linear measurements around dental implants by means of cone beam computed tomography with different exposure parameters.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of linear measurements around dental implants when using CBCT unit devices presenting different exposure parameters.

METHODS

Dental implants (n = 18) were installed in the maxilla of human dry skulls, and images were obtained using two CBCT devices: G1-Care Stream 9300 (70 kVp, 6.3 mA, voxel size 0.18 mm, field of view 8 × 8 cm; Carestream Health, Rochester, NY) and G2-R100 Veraview (75 kVp, 7.0 mA, voxel size 0.125 mm, field of view 8 × 8 cm; J Morita, Irvine, CA). Measurements of bone thickness were performed at three points located (A) in the most apical portion of the implant, (B) 5 mm above the apical point and (C) in the implant platform. Afterwards, values were compared with real measurements obtained by an optical microscopy [control group (CG)]. Data were statistically analyzed with the significance level of p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference for the mean values of bone thickness on Point A (CG: 4.85 ± 2.25 mm, G1: 4.19 ± 1.68 mm, G2: 4.15 ± 1.75 mm), Point B (CG: 1.50 ± 0.84 mm, G1: 1.61 ± 1.27 mm; G2: 1.68 ± 0.82 mm) and Point C (CG: 1.78 ± 1.33 mm, G1: 1.80 ± 1.09 mm; G2: 1.64 ± 1.11 mm). G1 and G2 differed in bone thickness by approximately 0.76 mm for Point A, 0.36 mm for Point B and 0.08 mm for Point C. A lower intraclass variability was identified for CG (Point A = 0.20 ± 0.25; Point B = 0.15 ± 0.20; Point C = 0.06 ± 0.05 mm) in comparison with G1 (Point A = 0.56 ± 0.52; Point B = 0.48 ± 0.50; Point C = 0.47 ± 0.56 mm) and G2 (Point A = 0.57 ± 0.51; Point B = 0.46 ± 0.46; Point C = 0.36 ± 0.31 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

CBCT devices showed acceptable accuracy for linear measurements around dental implants, despite the exposure parameters used.