Mahnaz Sheikhi1, Parichehr Behfarnia2, Mahdis Mostajabi3, Naeimeh Nasri4. 1. Torabinejad Dental Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. 2. Dental Implant Research Center, Department of Periodontics, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran. 4. Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on the diagnostic accuracy of fenestration and dehiscence around dental implants. METHODS: Twenty-three dental implants were placed adjacent to the dehiscence and 23 adjacent to the fenestration defects on bovine bone blocks. The blocks were scanned with CBCT unit in two modes, with and without MAR algorithm. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves (Az value), specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were determined for all modes. RESULTS: For both defects, the Az values were higher in off MAR condition. The values of sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, were higher in off MAR condition for both defects. However, the specificity in both defects in the two modes was equal. CONCLUSION: The MAR algorithm in CBCT unit may not be helpful in increasing the diagnostic accuracy of fenestration and dehiscence around dental implants.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on the diagnostic accuracy of fenestration and dehiscence around dental implants. METHODS: Twenty-three dental implants were placed adjacent to the dehiscence and 23 adjacent to the fenestration defects on bovine bone blocks. The blocks were scanned with CBCT unit in two modes, with and without MAR algorithm. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves (Az value), specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were determined for all modes. RESULTS: For both defects, the Az values were higher in off MAR condition. The values of sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, were higher in off MAR condition for both defects. However, the specificity in both defects in the two modes was equal. CONCLUSION: The MAR algorithm in CBCT unit may not be helpful in increasing the diagnostic accuracy of fenestration and dehiscence around dental implants.