Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Factors affecting the possibility to detect buccal bone condition around dental implants using cone beam computed tomography
Oral Radiology, Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Brazil; Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Surgery and Orthopedics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, ISSN 0905-7161, E-ISSN 1600-0501, Vol. 28, no 9, p. 1082-1088Article in journal (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate factors with impact on the conspicuity (possibility to detect) of the buccal bone condition around dental implants in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Titanium (Ti) or zirconia (Zr) implants and abutments were inserted into 40 bone blocks in a way to obtain variable buccal bone thicknesses. Three combinations regarding the implant-abutment metal (TiTi, TiZr, or ZrZr) and the number of implants (one, two, or three) were assessed. Two CBCT units (Scanora 3D - Sc and Cranex 3D - Cr) and two voxel resolutions (0.2 and 0.13 mm) were used. Reconstructed sagittal images (2.0 and 5.0 mm thickness) were evaluated by three examiners, using a dichotomous scale when assessing the condition of the buccal bone around the implants. A multivariate logistic regression was performed using examiners' detection of the buccal bone condition as the dependent variable. Odds ratio (OR) were calculated separately for each CBCT unit. RESULTS: Implant-abutment combination (ZrZr) (OR Sc = 19.18, OR Cr = 11.89) and number of implants (3) (OR Sc = 12.10, OR Cr = 4.25) had major impact on buccal bone conspicuity. The thinner the buccal bone, the higher the risk that the condition of the buccal bone could not be detected. The use of lower resolution protocols increased the risk that buccal bone was not properly detected (OR Sc = 1.46, OR Cr = 2.00). For both CBCT units, increasing the image reconstruction thickness increased the conspicuity of buccal bone (OR Sc = 0.33, OR Cr = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Buccal bone conspicuity was impaired by a number of factors, the implant-abutment material being the most relevant. Acquisition and reconstruction factors had minor impact on the detection of the buccal bone condition.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2017. Vol. 28, no 9, p. 1082-1088
Keywords [en]
zirconium, titanium, implants, cone beam computed tomography, buccal bone, in vitro
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-15514DOI: 10.1111/clr.12921ISI: 000409448600014PubMedID: 27444713Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84978842564Local ID: 23828OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-15514DiVA, id: diva2:1419035
Available from: 2020-03-30 Created: 2020-03-30 Last updated: 2024-06-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopushttp://rdcu.be/zKah/

Authority records

Stavropoulos, Andreas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Stavropoulos, Andreas
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 10 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf