Suppr超能文献

锥形束计算机断层扫描、口腔磁共振成像和口腔内射线照相术在检测单个氧化锆种植体周围骨缺损中的准确性——一项体外研究。

Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography, dental magnetic resonance imaging, and intraoral radiography for detecting peri-implant bone defects at single zirconia implants-An in vitro study.

机构信息

Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Department of Prosthodontics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

出版信息

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Sep;29(9):922-930. doi: 10.1111/clr.13348. Epub 2018 Aug 15.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic value of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), intraoral radiography (IR), and dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) for detecting and classifying peri-implant bone defects at zirconia implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight zirconia implants were inserted in bovine ribs, 24 of which had standardized defects (1-wall, 2-wall, 3-wall, 4-wall) in two sizes (1 and 3 mm). CBCT, IR, and dMRI were performed and analyzed twice by four readers unaware of the nature of the defects. Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa (κ), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for the presence/absence of bone defects, defect size, and defect type. Cochran's Q-test with post hoc McNemar was used to test for statistical differences.

RESULTS

A high intra- and inter-reader reliability (κ range: 0.832-1) and sensitivity/specificity (IR: 0.97/0.96; CBCT: 0.99/1; dMRI: 1/0.99) for bone defect detection were observed for all three imaging methods. For defect type classification, intra- (κ range: 0.505-0.778) and inter-reader (κ: 0.411) reliability of IR were lower compared to CBCT (κ range intrareader: 0.667-0.889; κ inter-reader: 0.629) and dMRI (κ range intrareader: 0.61-0.832; κ inter-reader: 0.712). The sensitivity for correct defect type classification was not significantly different for CBCT (0.81) and dMRI (0.83; p = 1), but was significantly lower for IR (0.68; vs. CBCT p = 0.003; vs. dMRI p = 0.004). The sensitivity advantage of CBCT and dMRI for defect classification was smaller for 1-mm defects (CBCT/dMRI/IR: 0.68/0.72/0.63, no significant difference) than for 3-mm defects (CBCT/dMRI/IR: 0.95/0.94/0.74; CBCT vs. IR p = 0.0001; dMRI vs. IR p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of an in vitro study, IR can be recommended as the initial imaging method for evaluating peri-implant bone defects at zirconia implants. CBCT provides higher diagnostic accuracy of defect classification at the expense of higher cost and radiation dose. Dental MRI may be a promising imaging method for evaluating peri-implant bone defects at zirconia implants in the future.

摘要

目的

评估锥形束 CT(CBCT)、口腔内射线照相(IR)和牙科磁共振成像(dMRI)在检测和分类氧化锆种植体周围骨缺损方面的诊断价值。

材料与方法

将 48 个氧化锆种植体植入牛肋骨中,其中 24 个种植体有两种尺寸(1 毫米和 3 毫米)的标准缺损(1 壁、2 壁、3 壁、4 壁)。对 CBCT、IR 和 dMRI 进行了两次检查,并由四位对缺陷性质不知情的读者进行了两次分析。计算了 Cohen's 和 Fleiss' kappa(κ)、敏感性和特异性,以评估骨缺损的存在/不存在、缺损大小和缺损类型。使用 Cochran's Q 检验和事后 McNemar 检验来检验统计学差异。

结果

三种成像方法均具有较高的内-和间-读者可靠性(κ 范围:0.832-1)和敏感性/特异性(IR:0.97/0.96;CBCT:0.99/1;dMRI:1/0.99),用于骨缺损检测。对于缺损类型分类,IR 的内-(κ 范围:0.505-0.778)和间-读者(κ:0.411)可靠性低于 CBCT(κ 范围内读者:0.667-0.889;κ 读者间:0.629)和 dMRI(κ 范围内读者:0.61-0.832;κ 读者间:0.712)。CBCT(0.81)和 dMRI(0.83;p=1)的正确缺陷类型分类的敏感性无显著差异,但 IR 的敏感性显著较低(0.68;与 CBCT p=0.003;与 dMRI p=0.004)。对于 1 毫米的缺损,CBCT 和 dMRI 对缺陷分类的敏感性优势(CBCT/dMRI/IR:0.68/0.72/0.63,无显著差异)小于 3 毫米的缺损(CBCT/dMRI/IR:0.95/0.94/0.74;CBCT 与 IR p=0.0001;dMRI 与 IR p=0.003)。

结论

在体外研究的限制范围内,IR 可作为评估氧化锆种植体周围骨缺损的初始成像方法。CBCT 提供了更高的缺陷分类诊断准确性,但代价是更高的成本和辐射剂量。牙科 MRI 可能是未来评估氧化锆种植体周围骨缺损的有前途的成像方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验