Sonography in the diagnosis of peri-implant bone defects: An in vitro study on native human mandibles

IF 4.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1111/clr.14302

Igor Bykhovsky, Alexander Hildner, Oliver D. Kripfgans, Reiner Mengel

{"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}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

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。

目的：本研究以本地人体尸体为研究对象，目的是对种植体上的隙缝、开裂和三壁骨缺损的临床、声学和放射学测量结果进行比较：对五具人体下颌骨进行了检查。在植入 27 个种植体后，以标准化方式制备了开裂（14 个）、瘘管（7 个）和三壁骨缺损（6 个）。使用牙周探针对骨缺损进行直接测量，并使用数字容积断层扫描（DVT）进行放射学检查。超声波检查（US）使用临床 24-MHz US 成像探头进行。计算了直接测量、超声检查和 DVT 测量的平均值和标准偏差。使用皮尔逊相关系数和 Bland-Altman 分析对测量结果进行统计比较：结果：直接测量的骨缺损平均为 3.22 ± 1.58 毫米，US 测量为 2.90 ± 1.47 毫米，DVT 评估为 2.99 ± 1.52 毫米。这些测量值的配对相关性为 R = .94（p 结论）：所有种植体周围的骨缺损都能被识别出来并进行声学测量。超声测量结果与直接测量结果和深静脉血栓测量结果显示出很强的相关性。开裂的声学测量准确度最高，其次是隙缝和三壁骨缺损。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

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.