Sergio Lins de-Azevedo-Vaz1, Priscila Dias Peyneau2, Laura Ricardina Ramirez-Sotelo2, Karla de Faria Vasconcelos2, Paulo Sérgio Flores Campos3, Francisco Haiter-Neto2. 1. Department of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Espirito Santo, Vitoria, Espirito Santo, Brazil. Electronic address: Sergiolinsv@gmail.com. 2. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Oral Radiology, Division of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm improves the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences on cone beam computed tomography scans. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred titanium fixtures were implanted into bovine ribs after the creation of defects simulating fenestrations and dehiscences. Images were acquired using four different protocols, namely, A2 (MAR on, voxel 0.2 mm), A3 (MAR on, voxel 0.3 mm), B2 (MAR off, voxel 0.2 mm), and B3 (MAR off, voxel 0.3 mm). For all protocols, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were determined. Values for the areas under the ROC curves (Az) were subjected to analysis of variance. RESULTS: Az values were not statistically different among protocols regardless of the defect type (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The MAR algorithm tested by us did not improve the diagnosis of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences with use of either the 0.2 mm or the 0.3 mm voxel sizes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm improves the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences on cone beam computed tomography scans. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred titanium fixtures were implanted into bovine ribs after the creation of defects simulating fenestrations and dehiscences. Images were acquired using four different protocols, namely, A2 (MAR on, voxel 0.2 mm), A3 (MAR on, voxel 0.3 mm), B2 (MAR off, voxel 0.2 mm), and B3 (MAR off, voxel 0.3 mm). For all protocols, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were determined. Values for the areas under the ROC curves (Az) were subjected to analysis of variance. RESULTS: Az values were not statistically different among protocols regardless of the defect type (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The MAR algorithm tested by us did not improve the diagnosis of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences with use of either the 0.2 mm or the 0.3 mm voxel sizes.