Methods for assessing peri-implant marginal bone levels on digital periapical radiographs: a meta-research.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dento maxillo facial radiology Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1093/dmfr/twaf002
Isabella Neme Ribeiro Dos Reis, Nathalia Vilela, Nadja Naenni, Ronald Ernest Jung, Frank Schwarz, Giuseppe Alexandre Romito, Rubens Spin-Neto, Claudio Mendes Pannuti
{"title":"Methods for assessing peri-implant marginal bone levels on digital periapical radiographs: a meta-research.","authors":"Isabella Neme Ribeiro Dos Reis, Nathalia Vilela, Nadja Naenni, Ronald Ernest Jung, Frank Schwarz, Giuseppe Alexandre Romito, Rubens Spin-Neto, Claudio Mendes Pannuti","doi":"10.1093/dmfr/twaf002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This meta-research assessed methodologies used for evaluating peri-implant marginal bone levels on digital periapical radiographs in randomised clinical trials published between 2019 and 2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Articles were searched in four databases. Data on methods for assessing peri-implant marginal bone levels were extracted. Risk of bias assessment was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During full-text reading, 108 out of 162 articles were excluded. Methodological issues accounted for these exclusions, including the absence of radiograph-type information, the lack of radiographic positioners, the missing anatomical references, and the use of panoramic radiographs or tomography. Fifty-four articles were included, most from Europe (70%) and university-based (74%). Radiographic positioners were specified in 54% of articles. Examiner calibration was unreported in 54%, with 69% lacking details. In 59%, no statistical measure assessed examiner agreement. Blinding was unreported or unused in 50%. Marginal bone level changes were the primary outcome of 61%. Most articles (59.3%) raised \"some concerns\" regarding bias, while 37% showed a high risk of bias, and only two articles (3.7%) demonstrated a low risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Several limitations and areas for improvement were identified. Future studies should prioritize protocol registration, standardize radiographic acquisitions, specify examiner details, implement calibration and statistical measures for agreement, introduce blinding protocols, and maintain geometric calibration standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twaf002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This meta-research assessed methodologies used for evaluating peri-implant marginal bone levels on digital periapical radiographs in randomised clinical trials published between 2019 and 2023.

Methods: Articles were searched in four databases. Data on methods for assessing peri-implant marginal bone levels were extracted. Risk of bias assessment was performed.

Results: During full-text reading, 108 out of 162 articles were excluded. Methodological issues accounted for these exclusions, including the absence of radiograph-type information, the lack of radiographic positioners, the missing anatomical references, and the use of panoramic radiographs or tomography. Fifty-four articles were included, most from Europe (70%) and university-based (74%). Radiographic positioners were specified in 54% of articles. Examiner calibration was unreported in 54%, with 69% lacking details. In 59%, no statistical measure assessed examiner agreement. Blinding was unreported or unused in 50%. Marginal bone level changes were the primary outcome of 61%. Most articles (59.3%) raised "some concerns" regarding bias, while 37% showed a high risk of bias, and only two articles (3.7%) demonstrated a low risk of bias.

Conclusions: Several limitations and areas for improvement were identified. Future studies should prioritize protocol registration, standardize radiographic acquisitions, specify examiner details, implement calibration and statistical measures for agreement, introduce blinding protocols, and maintain geometric calibration standards.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数字根尖周围x线片评估种植体周围边缘骨水平的方法:一项荟萃研究。
目的:本荟萃研究评估了2019年至2023年发表的随机临床试验中用于评估数字根尖周x线片种植体周围边缘骨水平的方法。方法:在4个数据库中检索相关文献。提取了评估种植体周围边缘骨水平方法的数据。进行偏倚风险评估。结果:在全文阅读过程中,162篇文章中有108篇被排除。方法学问题解释了这些排除,包括缺乏x线片类型信息,缺乏x线片定位器,缺少解剖学参考资料,以及使用全景x线片或断层扫描。54篇文章被纳入,大多数来自欧洲(70%)和大学(74%)。在54%的文章中指定了放射线定位器。54%的人没有报告审查员校准,69%的人缺乏细节。59%的人没有统计方法评估审查员是否同意。50%未报告或未使用盲法。61%的患者的主要结局是边缘骨水平的改变。大多数文章(59.3%)对偏倚提出了“一些担忧”,而37%的文章显示出高偏倚风险,只有两篇文章(3.7%)显示出低偏倚风险。结论:确定了一些限制和需要改进的领域。未来的研究应优先考虑方案注册,标准化放射图像采集,指定审查员细节,实施校准和统计措施以达成一致,引入盲法方案,并保持几何校准标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
65
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging. Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology. The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919 - Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks - Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks - Open access option - ISSN: 0250-832X - eISSN: 1476-542X
期刊最新文献
Enhancing panoramic dental imaging with AI-driven arch surface fitting: Achieving improved clarity and accuracy through an optimal reconstruction zone. Investigation of the effect of thyroid collar, radiation safety glasses and lead apron on radiation dose in cone beam computed tomography. Methods for assessing peri-implant marginal bone levels on digital periapical radiographs: a meta-research. Utility of the radiological report function of an artificial intelligence system in interpreting CBCT images: a technical report. Assessment of the Quality of Root Canal Fillings-An Ex-Vivo Comparison of CBCT Scans, Conventional Intraoral Sensors, and a Novel Photon-Counting Sensor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1