Reinhilde Jacobs, Myrthel Vranckx, Tony Vanderstuyft, Marc Quirynen, Benjamin Salmon
{"title":"CBCT vs other imaging modalities to assess peri-implant bone and diagnose complications: a systematic review.","authors":"Reinhilde Jacobs, Myrthel Vranckx, Tony Vanderstuyft, Marc Quirynen, Benjamin Salmon","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic value of CBCT compared with 2D imaging and clinical gold standard techniques in peri-implant bone defect detection and measurement.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases up to July 2017. Clinical, ex vivo, in vitro and animal studies that assessed and measured peri-implant bone defects using different imaging modalities were included in this review. Two reviewers performed data extraction and qualitative analysis. The methodological quality of each study was reviewed using the QUADAS-2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search revealed 2849 unique papers. Full-text analysis was performed on 60 articles. For the present review, nine studies were considered eligible to be included for qualitative analysis. CBCT performed similar to intraoral radiography in mesiodistal defect detection and measurements. Additional buccolingual visualisation and volumetric and morphological assessment of peri-implant bone defects are major advantages of 3D visualisation with CBCT. Nevertheless, one must be aware of metal artefacts masking osseointegration, shallow bony defects and other peri-implant radiolucencies, thus impeding early diagnosis of intrabony lesions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present review did not provide evidence to support the use of CBCT as standard postoperative procedure to evaluate peri-implant bone. Up to date, we are clinically forced to remain with intraoral radiography, notwithstanding the inherent limitations related to restricted field of view and two-dimensional overlap. A 3D imaging approach for postoperative implant evaluation is crucial, making further development of an optimised and artefact-free CBCT protocol indispensable.</p>","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"11 Suppl 1 ","pages":"77-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic value of CBCT compared with 2D imaging and clinical gold standard techniques in peri-implant bone defect detection and measurement.
Materials and methods: Literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases up to July 2017. Clinical, ex vivo, in vitro and animal studies that assessed and measured peri-implant bone defects using different imaging modalities were included in this review. Two reviewers performed data extraction and qualitative analysis. The methodological quality of each study was reviewed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
Results: The initial search revealed 2849 unique papers. Full-text analysis was performed on 60 articles. For the present review, nine studies were considered eligible to be included for qualitative analysis. CBCT performed similar to intraoral radiography in mesiodistal defect detection and measurements. Additional buccolingual visualisation and volumetric and morphological assessment of peri-implant bone defects are major advantages of 3D visualisation with CBCT. Nevertheless, one must be aware of metal artefacts masking osseointegration, shallow bony defects and other peri-implant radiolucencies, thus impeding early diagnosis of intrabony lesions.
Conclusions: The present review did not provide evidence to support the use of CBCT as standard postoperative procedure to evaluate peri-implant bone. Up to date, we are clinically forced to remain with intraoral radiography, notwithstanding the inherent limitations related to restricted field of view and two-dimensional overlap. A 3D imaging approach for postoperative implant evaluation is crucial, making further development of an optimised and artefact-free CBCT protocol indispensable.
目的:本系统综述的目的是评价CBCT与二维成像和临床金标准技术在种植体周围骨缺损检测和测量中的诊断价值。材料与方法:检索截至2017年7月的MEDLINE、Embase和Web of Science数据库。本文综述了使用不同成像方式评估和测量种植体周围骨缺损的临床、离体、体外和动物研究。两名审稿人进行数据提取和定性分析。使用QUADAS-2工具对每项研究的方法学质量进行评估。结果:最初的搜索显示了2849篇独特的论文。对60篇文章进行全文分析。在本综述中,9项研究被认为有资格纳入定性分析。CBCT在中远端缺陷检测和测量方面的表现与口内x线摄影相似。额外的颊舌可视化和种植体周围骨缺损的体积和形态评估是CBCT三维可视化的主要优势。然而,人们必须意识到金属假物会掩盖骨整合、浅骨缺损和其他种植体周围的放射性,从而阻碍骨内病变的早期诊断。结论:本综述没有提供证据支持使用CBCT作为标准的术后程序来评估种植体周围骨。迄今为止,我们在临床上被迫继续使用口内x线摄影,尽管其固有的局限性与受限的视野和二维重叠有关。术后植入物评估的3D成像方法至关重要,这使得进一步开发优化的无伪影CBCT方案必不可少。