Igor Bykhovsky, Alexander Hildner, Oliver D. Kripfgans, Reiner Mengel
{"title":"超声波诊断种植体周围骨缺损:对原生人类下颌骨的体外研究。","authors":"Igor Bykhovsky, Alexander Hildner, Oliver D. Kripfgans, Reiner Mengel","doi":"10.1111/clr.14302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this study on native human cadavers was to compare clinical, sonographic, and radiological measurements of fenestrations, dehiscences, and 3-wall bone defects on implants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The examination was carried out on five human mandibles. After the insertion of 27 implants, dehiscences (<i>n</i> = 14), fenestrations (<i>n</i> = 7) and 3-wall bone defects (<i>n</i> = 6) were prepared in a standardized manner. The direct measurement of the bone defects was carried out with a periodontal probe and the radiological examination was carried out using digital volume tomography (DVT). The ultrasound examination (US) was performed using a clinical 24-MHz US imaging probe. Means and standard deviations of the direct, US, and DVT measurements were calculated. Measurements were statistically compared using the Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Bone defects were on average 3.22 ± 1.58 mm per direct measurement, 2.90 ± 1.47 mm using US, and 2.99 ± 1.52 mm per DVT assessment. Pairwise correlations of these measurements were <i>R</i> = .94 (<i>p</i> < .0001) between direct and US, <i>R</i> = .95 (<i>p</i> < .0001) between DVT and US, and <i>R</i> = .96 (<i>p</i> < .0001) between direct and DVT. The mean differences of the measurements (and 95% CI) between direct and US was 0.41 (−0.47 to 1.29), US and DVT 0.33 (−0.30 to 0.97), and direct and DVT 0.28 (−0.50 to 1.07).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>All peri-implant bone defects could be identified and sonographically measured. US measurements showed a strong correlation with direct and DVT measurements. The sonographic measurement accuracy was highest for dehiscences, followed by fenestrations and 3-wall bone defects.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 9","pages":"1128-1137"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14302","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sonography in the diagnosis of peri-implant bone defects: An in vitro study on native human mandibles\",\"authors\":\"Igor Bykhovsky, Alexander Hildner, Oliver D. Kripfgans, Reiner Mengel\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>The aim of this study on native human cadavers was to compare clinical, sonographic, and radiological measurements of fenestrations, dehiscences, and 3-wall bone defects on implants.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The examination was carried out on five human mandibles. After the insertion of 27 implants, dehiscences (<i>n</i> = 14), fenestrations (<i>n</i> = 7) and 3-wall bone defects (<i>n</i> = 6) were prepared in a standardized manner. The direct measurement of the bone defects was carried out with a periodontal probe and the radiological examination was carried out using digital volume tomography (DVT). The ultrasound examination (US) was performed using a clinical 24-MHz US imaging probe. Means and standard deviations of the direct, US, and DVT measurements were calculated. Measurements were statistically compared using the Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Bone defects were on average 3.22 ± 1.58 mm per direct measurement, 2.90 ± 1.47 mm using US, and 2.99 ± 1.52 mm per DVT assessment. Pairwise correlations of these measurements were <i>R</i> = .94 (<i>p</i> < .0001) between direct and US, <i>R</i> = .95 (<i>p</i> < .0001) between DVT and US, and <i>R</i> = .96 (<i>p</i> < .0001) between direct and DVT. The mean differences of the measurements (and 95% CI) between direct and US was 0.41 (−0.47 to 1.29), US and DVT 0.33 (−0.30 to 0.97), and direct and DVT 0.28 (−0.50 to 1.07).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>All peri-implant bone defects could be identified and sonographically measured. US measurements showed a strong correlation with direct and DVT measurements. The sonographic measurement accuracy was highest for dehiscences, followed by fenestrations and 3-wall bone defects.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"35 9\",\"pages\":\"1128-1137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14302\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14302\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14302","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sonography in the diagnosis of peri-implant bone defects: An in vitro study on native human mandibles
Aim
The aim of this study on native human cadavers was to compare clinical, sonographic, and radiological measurements of fenestrations, dehiscences, and 3-wall bone defects on implants.
Materials and Methods
The examination was carried out on five human mandibles. After the insertion of 27 implants, dehiscences (n = 14), fenestrations (n = 7) and 3-wall bone defects (n = 6) were prepared in a standardized manner. The direct measurement of the bone defects was carried out with a periodontal probe and the radiological examination was carried out using digital volume tomography (DVT). The ultrasound examination (US) was performed using a clinical 24-MHz US imaging probe. Means and standard deviations of the direct, US, and DVT measurements were calculated. Measurements were statistically compared using the Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman analysis.
Results
Bone defects were on average 3.22 ± 1.58 mm per direct measurement, 2.90 ± 1.47 mm using US, and 2.99 ± 1.52 mm per DVT assessment. Pairwise correlations of these measurements were R = .94 (p < .0001) between direct and US, R = .95 (p < .0001) between DVT and US, and R = .96 (p < .0001) between direct and DVT. The mean differences of the measurements (and 95% CI) between direct and US was 0.41 (−0.47 to 1.29), US and DVT 0.33 (−0.30 to 0.97), and direct and DVT 0.28 (−0.50 to 1.07).
Conclusion
All peri-implant bone defects could be identified and sonographically measured. US measurements showed a strong correlation with direct and DVT measurements. The sonographic measurement accuracy was highest for dehiscences, followed by fenestrations and 3-wall bone defects.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.