Assessment of peri-implant defects at titanium and zirconium dioxide implants by means of periapical radiographs and cone beam computed tomography: An in-vitro examination

• Main Authors: Benic, G.I (Author), Krcmaric, Z. (Author), Sahrmann, P. (Author), Schmidlin, P.R (Author), Steiger-Ronay, V. (Author), Wiedemeier, D.B (Author)
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Blackwell Munksgaard 2018
• Subjects: adverse device effect; alveolar bone; Alveolar Process; bone; bone defect; comparative study; computed tomography; cone beam computed tomography; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; dental implant; Dental Implants; diagnostic imaging; digital; human; Humans; in vitro study; In Vitro Techniques; nonparametric test; periapical radiography; periimplantitis; peri-implantitis; Peri-Implantitis; Radiography, Dental, Digital; radiology; scan; Statistics, Nonparametric; titanium; Titanium; titanium implant; tooth implant; tooth radiography; X-ray; zirconium; Zirconium; zirconium dioxide; zirconium dioxide implant; zirconium oxide
• Online Access: View Fulltext in Publisher

 Objective: To test the accuracy of measurement of interproximal peri-implant bone defects at titanium (Ti) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO 2 ) implants by digital periapical radiography (PR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and methods: A total of 18 models, each containing one Ti and one ZrO 2 implant, were cast in dental stone. Six models each were allocated to following defect groups: A—no peri-implant defect, B—1 mm width defect, C—1.5 mm width defect. The defect width was measured with a digital sliding caliper. Subsequently, the models were scanned by means of PR and CBCT. Three examiners assessed the defect width on PR and CBCT. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were applied to detect differences between imaging techniques and implant types. Results: For PR, the deviation of the defect width measurement (mm) for groups A, B, and C amounted to 0.01 ± 0.03, −0.02 ± 0.06, and −0.00 ± 0.04 at Ti and 0.05 ± 0.02, 0.01 ± 0.03, and 0.09 ± 0.03 at ZrO 2 implants. The corresponding values (mm) for CBCT reached 0.10 ± 0.11, 0.26 ± 0.05, and 0.24 ± 0.08 at Ti and 1.07 ± 0.06, 0.64 ± 0.37, and 0.54 ± 0.17 at ZrO 2 implants. Except for Ti with defect A, measurements in PR were significantly more accurate in comparison to CBCT (p ≤ 0.05). Both methods generally yielded more accurate measurements for Ti than for ZrO 2 . Conclusions: The assessment of interproximal peri-implant defect width at Ti and ZrO 2 implants was more accurate in PR in comparison to CBCT. Measurements in CBCT always led to an overestimation of the defect width, reaching clinical relevance for ZrO 2 implants. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd