Yanhua Lan1, Xiaoyuan Huang1, Mingxing Fan2, Huazhen Yu3, Zhijian Xie4, Yiqun Zhou5. 1. School of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Stomatology HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineKey Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310006, People's Republic of China. 2. Hangzhou 6D Dental Technologies Co., Ltd, Hangzhou, 310001, People's Republic of China. 3. School of Mathematical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310012, People's Republic of China. 4. School of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Stomatology HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineKey Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310006, People's Republic of China. xzj66@zju.edu.cn. 5. School of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Stomatology HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineKey Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310006, People's Republic of China. 7306002@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to study the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for measuring peri-implant bone thickness in living patients via a novel visualization method (NVM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The validity of the NVM was verified ex vivo by measuring the same peri-implant bone thicknesses in bovine ribs by using raw postoperative CBCT (clinical measurement, CM), the visualized fused images obtained using the NVM (visualized fused measurement, VF), and hard tissue sections (gold standard measurement, GS). The NVM was applied by deconstructing the postoperative CBCT model into the Modelpost-bone and Modelimplant and replacing it with bone from preoperative CBCT and standard implant models, respectively. In vivo, 52 implants were included, and the VF of each implant was obtained using data processing methods similar to those used ex vivo. Then, we compared the results of CM and VF. RESULTS: Ex vivo, the VF was similar to GS, while CM usually underestimated the peri-implant bone thickness, especially at the implant shoulder (P < 0.01). In vivo, on CBCT, areas with a peri-implant bone thickness of 0-0.50 mm were not visible, while those with a thickness of 0.50-1.00 mm were occasionally visible. There was less underestimation of bone along the implant long axis. CONCLUSIONS: Thin peri-implant bones could be completely underestimated on CBCT. CBCT scans alone are insufficient to warrant surgical intervention. Our NVM facilitates the accurate visual assessment of implant dimensions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The thickness of peri-implant bone could be completely underestimated when thinner than 1.0 mm in living patients. Familiarity with these confusing CBCT results may help clinicians and patients avoid further unnecessary evaluation, misdiagnosis, and invasive treatment.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to study the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for measuring peri-implant bone thickness in living patients via a novel visualization method (NVM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The validity of the NVM was verified ex vivo by measuring the same peri-implant bone thicknesses in bovine ribs by using raw postoperative CBCT (clinical measurement, CM), the visualized fused images obtained using the NVM (visualized fused measurement, VF), and hard tissue sections (gold standard measurement, GS). The NVM was applied by deconstructing the postoperative CBCT model into the Modelpost-bone and Modelimplant and replacing it with bone from preoperative CBCT and standard implant models, respectively. In vivo, 52 implants were included, and the VF of each implant was obtained using data processing methods similar to those used ex vivo. Then, we compared the results of CM and VF. RESULTS: Ex vivo, the VF was similar to GS, while CM usually underestimated the peri-implant bone thickness, especially at the implant shoulder (P < 0.01). In vivo, on CBCT, areas with a peri-implant bone thickness of 0-0.50 mm were not visible, while those with a thickness of 0.50-1.00 mm were occasionally visible. There was less underestimation of bone along the implant long axis. CONCLUSIONS: Thin peri-implant bones could be completely underestimated on CBCT. CBCT scans alone are insufficient to warrant surgical intervention. Our NVM facilitates the accurate visual assessment of implant dimensions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The thickness of peri-implant bone could be completely underestimated when thinner than 1.0 mm in living patients. Familiarity with these confusing CBCT results may help clinicians and patients avoid further unnecessary evaluation, misdiagnosis, and invasive treatment.
Authors: Daniel Buser; Simone F M Janner; Julia-Gabriela Wittneben; Urs Brägger; Christoph A Ramseier; Giovanni E Salvi Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: T Albrektsson; E Dahl; L Enbom; S Engevall; B Engquist; A R Eriksson; G Feldmann; N Freiberg; P O Glantz; O Kjellman Journal: J Periodontol Date: 1988-05 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Ioannis K Karoussis; Giovanni E Salvi; Lisa J A Heitz-Mayfield; Urs Brägger; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Niklaus P Lang Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.977