Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

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


Steiger-Ronay, Valerie; Krcmaric, Zvonimir; Schmidlin, Patrick R; Sahrmann, Philipp; Wiedemeier, Daniel B; Benic, Goran I (2018). 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. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 29(12):1195-1201.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To test the accuracy of measurement of interproximal peri-implant bone defects at titanium (Ti) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO ) implants by digital periapical radiography (PR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS
A total of 18 models, each containing one Ti and one ZrO implant, were cast in dental stone. Six models each were allocated to following defect groups: A-no peri-implant defect, B-1 mm width defect, C-1.5 mm width defect. The defect width was measured with a digital sliding caliper. Subsequently, the models were scanned by means of PR and CBCT. Three examiners assessed the defect width on PR and CBCT. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were applied to detect differences between imaging techniques and implant types.

RESULTS
For PR, the deviation of the defect width measurement (mm) for groups A, B, and C amounted to 0.01 ± 0.03, -0.02 ± 0.06, and -0.00 ± 0.04 at Ti and 0.05 ± 0.02, 0.01 ± 0.03, and 0.09 ± 0.03 at ZrO implants. The corresponding values (mm) for CBCT reached 0.10 ± 0.11, 0.26 ± 0.05, and 0.24 ± 0.08 at Ti and 1.07 ± 0.06, 0.64 ± 0.37, and 0.54 ± 0.17 at ZrO implants. Except for Ti with defect A, measurements in PR were significantly more accurate in comparison to CBCT (p ≤ 0.05). Both methods generally yielded more accurate measurements for Ti than for ZrO .

CONCLUSIONS
The assessment of interproximal peri-implant defect width at Ti and ZrO implants was more accurate in PR in comparison to CBCT. Measurements in CBCT always led to an overestimation of the defect width, reaching clinical relevance for ZrO implants.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To test the accuracy of measurement of interproximal peri-implant bone defects at titanium (Ti) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO ) implants by digital periapical radiography (PR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS
A total of 18 models, each containing one Ti and one ZrO implant, were cast in dental stone. Six models each were allocated to following defect groups: A-no peri-implant defect, B-1 mm width defect, C-1.5 mm width defect. The defect width was measured with a digital sliding caliper. Subsequently, the models were scanned by means of PR and CBCT. Three examiners assessed the defect width on PR and CBCT. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were applied to detect differences between imaging techniques and implant types.

RESULTS
For PR, the deviation of the defect width measurement (mm) for groups A, B, and C amounted to 0.01 ± 0.03, -0.02 ± 0.06, and -0.00 ± 0.04 at Ti and 0.05 ± 0.02, 0.01 ± 0.03, and 0.09 ± 0.03 at ZrO implants. The corresponding values (mm) for CBCT reached 0.10 ± 0.11, 0.26 ± 0.05, and 0.24 ± 0.08 at Ti and 1.07 ± 0.06, 0.64 ± 0.37, and 0.54 ± 0.17 at ZrO implants. Except for Ti with defect A, measurements in PR were significantly more accurate in comparison to CBCT (p ≤ 0.05). Both methods generally yielded more accurate measurements for Ti than for ZrO .

CONCLUSIONS
The assessment of interproximal peri-implant defect width at Ti and ZrO implants was more accurate in PR in comparison to CBCT. Measurements in CBCT always led to an overestimation of the defect width, reaching clinical relevance for ZrO implants.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 06 Mar 2019
1 download since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology
04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:December 2018
Deposited On:06 Mar 2019 15:03
Last Modified:07 Mar 2019 08:37
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:0905-7161
Additional Information:This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Clin Oral Impl Res. 2018;29:1195–1201., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13383. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. (http://www.wileyauthors.com/self-archiving)
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13383
PubMed ID:30387207

Download