A Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Panoramic Radiography in the Detection of Mechanical Created Peri-implant Bone Defects
Author(s): Ahmed R Naje*, Ban F-Al Drobie and Ali Falah
Abstract
Background: Undetected and untreated peri-implantitis may lead to implant failure in terms of implant loss, and early detection of peri-implantitis is paramount. Radiographic examination has thereby become a standard for the evaluation of the peri-implant bony conditions. Aim of Study: To compare the diagnostic potentials and practical advantages of panorama and cone beam computed tomography imaging systems in detecting mechanically simulated defects around dental implants with different sizes. Materials and
Method: Forty implants (n=40) were placed in bovine ribs and divided into two groups: (1.) control group (n=8) and (2.) test group (n=32). The test group was divided into two subgroups: T1 (0.45 mm peri-implant space), T2 (0.7 mm peri-implant space). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panorama (PAN) radio-graphical images were acquired. One oral and maxillofacial surgeon and two oral and maxillofacial radiologists evaluated the presence of defects, and their findings were compared with direct visual evaluation. Confidence in diagnosing the presence or absence of a periimplant radiolucency was recorded on a five-point scale. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and accuracy of the apparatus were calculated.
Results: CBCT were better at diagnosing a peri-implant bone defect when the compared with PAN. Accuracy of CBCT (71.88%) was better than PAN (65.62). The sensitivity of PAN (80%) is better than CBCT (73.33%). Specificity and positive predictive value of CBCT better than PAN. The negative predictive value of PAN was higher than CBCT.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, CBCT are a reliable and valid method of detecting circumferential periimplant bone defects and performed significantly better than PAN.