TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy of a cone beam computed tomography metal artifact reduction algorithm for the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences
AU - De-Azevedo-Vaz, Sergio Lins
AU - Peyneau, Priscila Dias
AU - Ramirez-Sotelo, Laura Ricardina
AU - Vasconcelos, Karla De Faria
AU - Campos, Paulo Sérgio Flores
AU - Haiter-Neto, Francisco
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2016 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/5/1
Y1 - 2016/5/1
N2 - Objective To determine whether the use of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm improves the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences on cone beam computed tomography scans. Study Design One hundred titanium fixtures were implanted into bovine ribs after the creation of defects simulating fenestrations and dehiscences. Images were acquired using four different protocols, namely, A2 (MAR on, voxel 0.2 mm), A3 (MAR on, voxel 0.3 mm), B2 (MAR off, voxel 0.2 mm), and B3 (MAR off, voxel 0.3 mm). For all protocols, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were determined. Values for the areas under the ROC curves (Az) were subjected to analysis of variance. Results Az values were not statistically different among protocols regardless of the defect type (P >.05). Conclusions The MAR algorithm tested by us did not improve the diagnosis of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences with use of either the 0.2 mm or the 0.3 mm voxel sizes.
AB - Objective To determine whether the use of a metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm improves the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences on cone beam computed tomography scans. Study Design One hundred titanium fixtures were implanted into bovine ribs after the creation of defects simulating fenestrations and dehiscences. Images were acquired using four different protocols, namely, A2 (MAR on, voxel 0.2 mm), A3 (MAR on, voxel 0.3 mm), B2 (MAR off, voxel 0.2 mm), and B3 (MAR off, voxel 0.3 mm). For all protocols, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were determined. Values for the areas under the ROC curves (Az) were subjected to analysis of variance. Results Az values were not statistically different among protocols regardless of the defect type (P >.05). Conclusions The MAR algorithm tested by us did not improve the diagnosis of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences with use of either the 0.2 mm or the 0.3 mm voxel sizes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964006011&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.oooo.2016.01.013
DO - 10.1016/j.oooo.2016.01.013
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 27068312
AN - SCOPUS:84964006011
SN - 2212-4403
VL - 121
SP - 550
EP - 556
JO - Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
JF - Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
IS - 5
ER -