Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제54권2호
  • /
  • Pages.171-180
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of peri-implant bone defects on cone-beam computed tomography and the diagnostic accuracy of detecting these defects on panoramic images

  • Takayuki Oshima (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, The Nippon Dental University School of Life Dentistry) ;
  • Rieko Asaumi (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, The Nippon Dental University School of Life Dentistry) ;
  • Shin Ogura (Division of Oral Implantology, The Nippon Dental University Hospital) ;
  • Taisuke Kawai (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, The Nippon Dental University School of Life Dentistry)
  • 투고 : 2023.11.30
  • 심사 : 2024.02.28
  • 발행 : 2024.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study was conducted to identify the typical sites and patterns of peri-implant bone defects on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, as well as to evaluate the detectability of the identified bone defects on panoramic images. Materials and Methods: The study population included 114 patients with a total of 367 implant fixtures. CBCT images were used to assess the presence or absence of bone defects around each implant fixture at the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sites. Based on the number of defect sites, the presentations of the peri-implant bone defects were categorized into 3 patterns: 1 site, 2 or 3 sites, and circumferential bone defects. Two observers independently evaluated the presence or absence of bone defects on panoramic images. The bone defect detection rate on these images was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: Of the 367 implants studied, 167 (45.5%) had at least 1 site with a confirmed bone defect. The most common type of defect was circumferential, affecting 107 of the 167 implants(64.1%). Implants were most frequently placed in the mandibular molar region. The prevalence of bone defects was greatest in the maxillary premolar and mandibular molar regions. The highest kappa value was associated with the mandibular premolar region. Conclusion: The typical bone defect pattern observed was a circumferential defect surrounding the implant. The detection rate was generally higher in the molar region than in the anterior region. However, the capacity to detect partial bone defects using panoramic imaging was determined to be poor.

키워드

과제정보

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Dr. Hiroshi Iwata and Dr. Kazuto Koresawa of the Nippon Dental University Hospital, as well as Dr. Madoka Nagaura of the Nippon Dental University School of Life Dentistry at Tokyo, for their invaluable assistance with the image acquisition and observation. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Keiichi Nishikawa of Tokyo Dental College for his considerable aid with the preparation of this study.

참고문헌

  1. Schwarz F, Derks J, Monje A, Wang HL. Peri-implantitis. J Clin Periodontol 2018; 45 Suppl 20: S246-66.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12954
  2. Renvert S, Persson GR, Pirih FQ, Camargo PM. Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: case definitions and diagnostic considerations. J Periodontol 2018; 89 Suppl 1: S304-12.  https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.17-0588
  3. Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Salvi GE. Peri-implant mucositis. J Clin Periodontol 2018; 45 Suppl 20: S237-45.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12953
  4. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry a consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 566-70.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130518.x
  5. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC, et al. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113: 817-26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005
  6. Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T. Definition and prevalence of peri-implant diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35 Suppl 8: 286-91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01274.x
  7. Patel S, Dawood A, Whaites E, Pitt Ford T. New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 1. Conventional and alternative radiographic systems. Int Endod J 2009; 42: 447-62.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01530.x
  8. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15: 76-94. 
  9. Zechner W, Watzak G, Gahleitner A, Busenlechner D, Tepper G, Watzek G. Rotational panoramic versus intraoral rectangular radiographs for evaluation of peri-implant bone loss in the anterior atrophic mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 873-8. 
  10. Serino G, Turri A. Outcome of surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: results from a 2-year prospective clinical study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1214-20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02098.x
  11. Schwarz F, Sahm N, Schwarz K, Becker J. Impact of defect configuration on the clinical outcome following surgical regenerative therapy of peri-implantitis. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 449-55.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01540.x
  12. Wehner C, Bertl K, Durstberger G, Arnhart C, Rausch-Fan X, Stavropoulos A. Characteristics and frequency distribution of bone defect configurations in peri-implantitis lesions - a series of 193 cases. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2021; 23: 178-88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12961
  13. Schwarz F, Herten M, Sager M, Bieling K, Sculean A, Becker J. Comparison of naturally occurring and ligature-induced peri-implantitis bone defects in humans and dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18: 161-70.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01320.x
  14. Monje A, Pons R, Insua A, Nart J, Wang HL, Schwarz F. Morphology and severity of peri-implantitis bone defects. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 635-43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12791
  15. Pelekos G, Tse JMN, Ho D, Tonetti MS. Defect morphology, bone thickness, exposure settings and examiner experience affect the diagnostic accuracy of standardized digital periapical radiographic images but not of cone beam computed tomography in the detection of peri-implant osseous defects: an in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46: 1294-302.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13200
  16. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01817.x
  17. Ritter L, Elger MC, Rothamel D, Fienitz T, Zinser M, Schwarz F, et al. Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20130088. 
  18. Bornstein MM, Horner K, Jacobs R. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73: 51-72.  https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12161
  19. Harris D, Horner K, Grondahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 1243-53.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02441.x
  20. Kim MJ, Lee SS, Choi M, Yong HS, Lee C, Kim JE, et al. Developing evidence-based clinical imaging guidelines of justification for radiographic examination after dental implant installation. BMC Med Imaging 2020; 20: 102. 
  21. Heuberer S, Dvorak G, Mayer C, Watzek G, Zechner W. Dental implants are a viable alternative for compensating ologodontia in adolescents. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: e22-7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12323
  22. Geraets WG, Verheij HG, Wismeijer D, van der Stelt PF. Detecting bone loss along dental implants by subtraction of panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 861-5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02215.x
  23. Merheb J, Graham J, Coucke W, Roberts M, Quirynen M, Jacobs R, et al. Prediction of implant loss and marginal bone loss by analysis of dental panoramic radiographs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30: 372-7.  https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3604
  24. Suomalainen A, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Robinson S. Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging 2015; 6: 1-16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-014-0379-4
  25. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  26. Garcia-Garcia M, Mir-Mari J, Benic GI, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellon E. Accuracy of periapical radiography in assessing bone level in implants affected by peri-implantitis: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Periodontol 2016; 43: 85-91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12491
  27. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12048
  28. Golubovic V, Mihatovic I, Becker J, Schwarz F. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography to assess the configuration and extent of ligature-induced peri-implantitis defects. A pilot study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 16: 349-54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-012-0320-2
  29. Pietrokovski J, Massler M. Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction. J Prosthet Dent 1967; 17: 21-7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(67)90046-7
  30. Jang HW, Kang JK, Lee K, Lee YS, Park PK. A retrospective study on related factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3: 204-15.  https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.4.204
  31. Rees TD, Biggs NL, Collings CK. Radiographic interpretation of periodontal osseous lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 141-53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(71)90260-X
  32. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.02.024
  33. Lam EW, Ruprecht A, Yang J. Comparison of two-dimensional orthoradially reformatted computed tomography and panoramic radiography for dental implant treatment planning. J Prosthet Dent 1995; 74: 42-6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80227-6
  34. Riecke B, Friedrich RE, Schulze D, Loos C, Blessmann M, Heiland M, et al. Impact of malpositioning on panoramic radiography in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 781-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1295-1