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.
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