Home Dental Radiology Efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography with modified gray-scale range versus digital periapical radiography for the assessment of bone–implant interface gaps

Efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography with modified gray-scale range versus digital periapical radiography for the assessment of bone–implant interface gaps

by adminjay


  • 1.

    Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, et al. Osseo integrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1–132.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 2.

    Parithimarkalaignan S, Padmanabhan TV. Osseointegration: an update. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(1):2–6.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 3.

    Saberi BV, Khosravifard N, Ghandari F, Hadinezhad A. Detection of peri-implant bone defects using cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography with parallel and oblique projection. Imaging Sci Dent. 2019;49:265–72.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    Kim JH, Abdala-Junior R, Munhoz L, Cortes A, Watanabe P, Costa C. Comparison between different cone-beam computed tomography devices in the detection of mechanically simulated peri-implant bone defects. Imaging Sci Dent. 2020;50:133–9.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 5.

    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.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    Dave M, Davies J, Wilson R, Palmer R. A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri-implant bone defects. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:671–8.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 7.

    Dobbs MB, Buckwalter J, Saltzman C. Osteoporosis: the increasing role of the orthopaedist. Iowa Orthop J. 1999;19:43–52.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 8.

    Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):55–77.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 9.

    Panjnoush M, Kheirandish Y, Kashani PM, Fakhar HB, Younesi F, Mallahi M. Effect of exposure parameters on metal artifacts in cone beam computed tomography. J Dent (Tehran). 2016;13:143–50.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    Kataoka ML, Hochman MG, Rodriguez EK, Lin PJ, Kubo S, Raptopolous VD. A review of factors that affect artifact from metallic hardware on multi-row detector computed tomography. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2010;39:125–36.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Asli HN, Kajan ZD, Gholizade F. Evaluation of the success rate of cone beam computed tomography in determining the location and direction of screw access holes in cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:220–4.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    Asli HN, Kajan ZD, Khosravifard N, Roudbary SN, Rafiei E. Comparison of success rates of cone beam computed tomography in the retrieval of metal-ceramic vs all-ceramic implant supported restorations: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2020. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6334.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Vidor MM, Liedke GS, Vizzotto MB, da Silveira HL, da Silveira PF, Araujo CW, da Silveira HE. Imaging evaluating of the implant/bone interface—an in vitro radiographic study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46:20160296.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    dos Santos CL, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, Huang Y, Naert I, Duyck J. Peri-implant bone tissue assessment by comparing the outcome of intra-oral radiograph and cone beam computed tomography analyses to the histological standard. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:492–9.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 15.

    Vidor MM, Liedke GS, Fontana MP, da Silveira HL, Arus NA, Lemos A, Vizzotto MB. Is cone beam computed tomography accurate for postoperative evaluation of implants? An in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;124:500–5.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 16.

    Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20140224.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    Durack C, Patel S, Davies J, Wilson R, Mannocci F. Diagnostic accuracy of small volume cone beam computed tomography and intraoral periapical radiography for the detection of simulated external inflammatory root resorption. Int Endod J. 2011;44:136–47.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    Estrela C, Bueno MR, Leles CR, Azevedo B, Azevedo JR. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic and periapical radiography for detection of apical periodontitis. J Endod. 2008;34:273–9.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    Hilgenfeld T, Juerchott A, Deisenhofer UK, Krisam J, Rammelsberg P, Heiland S, Bendszus M, Schwindling FS. 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. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:922–30.

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     



  • Source link

    Related Articles

    Leave a Comment