首页> 外文期刊>Clinical oral implants research >Accuracy of cone‐beam computed tomography, dental magnetic resonance imaging, and intraoral radiography for detecting peri‐implant bone defects at single zirconia implants—An in vitro study
【24h】

Accuracy of cone‐beam computed tomography, dental magnetic resonance imaging, and intraoral radiography for detecting peri‐implant bone defects at single zirconia implants—An in vitro study

机译:锥梁计算机断层扫描,牙科磁共振成像和口内放射线照相检测单个氧化锆植入物的脑缺损 - 体外研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic value of cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT), intraoral radiography (IR), and dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) for detecting and classifying peri‐implant bone defects at zirconia implants. Materials and Methods Forty‐eight zirconia implants were inserted in bovine ribs, 24 of which had standardized defects (1‐wall, 2‐wall, 3‐wall, 4‐wall) in two sizes (1 and 3?mm). CBCT, IR, and dMRI were performed and analyzed twice by four readers unaware of the nature of the defects. Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa ( κ ), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for the presence/absence of bone defects, defect size, and defect type. Cochran's Q ‐test with post hoc McNemar was used to test for statistical differences. Results A high intra‐ and inter‐reader reliability ( κ range: 0.832–1) and sensitivity/specificity (IR: 0.97/0.96; CBCT: 0.99/1; dMRI: 1/0.99) for bone defect detection were observed for all three imaging methods. For defect type classification, intra‐ ( κ range: 0.505–0.778) and inter‐reader ( κ : 0.411) reliability of IR were lower compared to CBCT ( κ range intrareader: 0.667–0.889; κ inter‐reader: 0.629) and dMRI ( κ range intrareader: 0.61–0.832; κ inter‐reader: 0.712). The sensitivity for correct defect type classification was not significantly different for CBCT (0.81) and dMRI (0.83; p?=? 1), but was significantly lower for IR (0.68; vs. CBCT p?=? 0.003; vs. dMRI p?=? 0.004). The sensitivity advantage of CBCT and dMRI for defect classification was smaller for 1‐mm defects (CBCT/dMRI/IR: 0.68/0.72/0.63, no significant difference) than for 3‐mm defects (CBCT/dMRI/IR: 0.95/0.94/0.74; CBCT vs. IR p?=? 0.0001; dMRI vs. IR p?=? 0.003). Conclusion Within the limitations of an in vitro study, IR can be recommended as the initial imaging method for evaluating peri‐implant bone defects at zirconia implants. CBCT provides higher diagnostic accuracy of defect classification at the expense of higher cost and radiation dose. Dental MRI may be a promising imaging method for evaluating peri‐implant bone defects at zirconia implants in the future.
机译:摘要目的,评价锥梁计算断层扫描(CBCT),内部射线照相(IR)和牙科磁共振成像(DMRI)检测和分类锆植入物的肝脏骨缺损的诊断值。将四十八个氧化锆植入物的材料和方法插入牛肋中,其中24个具有标准化的缺陷(1壁,2壁,3壁,4壁),两种尺寸(1和3Ωmm)。通过四个读者不知道缺陷性质进行了两次CBCT,IR和DMRI。计算骨缺损,缺陷尺寸和缺陷类型的存在/不存在,计算Cohen和Fleisl'Kappa(κ),敏感性和特异性。 Cochran的Q -Test与Hoc McNemar使用后麦克马马尔用于测试统计差异。结果高于和κ互相互联性和κ型:0.832-1)和敏感性/特异性(IR:0.97 / 0.96; CBCT:0.99 / 1; DMRI:1 / 0.99),所有三个都观察到骨缺损检测成像方法。对于缺陷类型分类,与CBCT相比,INTRA(κ范围:0.505-0.778)和读者互联(κ:0.411)IR的可靠性降低(κ范围内:0.667-0.889;κ互相读者:0.629)和DMRI (κ范围内:0.61-0.832;κ互相读数:0.712)。对于CBCT(0.81)和DMRI(0.83; p?=Δ1)而言,正确缺陷类型分类的灵敏度没有显着差异,但IR的IR(0.68;与CBCT P. = 0.003;与DMRI P.)显着降低?=?0.004)。 CBCT和DMRI对缺损分类的敏感性优势较小,缺陷较小(CBCT / DMRI / IR:0.68 / 0.72 / 0.63,无显着差异)比3毫米缺陷(CBCT / DMRI / IR:0.95 / 0.94 / 0.74; CBCT与IR P?=?0.0001; DMRI与IR P?=?0.003)。结论在体外研究的局限质中,可以推荐IR作为评估氧化锆植入物的血液植入骨缺陷的初始成像方法。 CBCT以更高的成本和辐射剂量为代价提供更高的缺陷分类诊断准确性。牙科MRI可能是未来氧化锆植入物在氧化锆植入物中评估围植入骨缺陷的有望的成像方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号