A Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Panoramic and Digital Periapical Radiography in the Detection of Chemical and Mechanical Created Peri-Implant Bone Defects Naji Ahmed R.1,*, Drobie Ban F. AL1, Falah Ali2 1Department of Oral Diagnosis, College of Dentistry, University of Babylon, Iraq 2Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, University of Babylon, Iraq *Corresponding author: Ahmed R. Naji, E-mail: dentist.ahmed70@yahoo.com
Online published on 4 June, 2019. Abstract In dental practice, radiography is the most common technique used to diagnose peri-implantitis. Intraoral radiographs provide a bi-dimensional image of the peri-implant bone. In cases in which tridimensional visualization of the bone is required, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) may be alternatives. The choice of the ideal technique depends in part on its availability, ease of use, and patient acceptance. The aim is to compare the diagnostic potentials and practical advantages of PA and CBCT imaging systems in detecting chemically simulated defects around dental implants with different sizes. Forty implants (n = 40) were placed in bovine ribs and divided into two groups: (1) control group (n = 8) and (2) test group (n = 32). The test group was divided into two subgroups: T1 (4 hours of acid exposure), T2 (12 hours of acid exposure). CBCT and digital periapical images were acquired. One oral and maxillofacial surgeon OMS) and two oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMRs) evaluated the presence of defects, and their findings were compared with direct visual evaluation. Confidence in diagnosing the presence or absence of a peri-implant radiolucency was recorded on a five-point scale. sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and accuracy of the apparatus were calculated. CBCT were better at diagnosing a peri-implant bone defect when the compared with PA. As the peri-implant space increase there was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two imaging methods. Accuracy of CBCT (71, 88%) was better than PA (43, 75%).the sensitivity of CBCT (73, 33%) was better than PA (65%). specificity and positive predictive value of CBCT better than PA. The negative predictive value of PA(12, 5%) was higher than CBCT(11, 11%). Within the limitations of this study, CBCT are a reliable and valid method of detecting circumferential peri-implant bone defects and performed significantly better than PA. Top Keywords Cone beam computed tomography; dental radiography; dental implants; bone defect. Top |