Reliability of Using Texture Analysis of Periapical Radiographs Obtained Using Radiovisiography for Assessing Bone Quality in Dental Implant Planning: A Cross-Sectional Study.
anatomical location
bone quality
implant planning
intra oral radiographs
radiovisiography
reliability
texture analysis
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
accepted:
23
12
2022
entrez:
25
1
2023
pubmed:
26
1
2023
medline:
26
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background Pre-prosthetic implant radiographic imaging helps in the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the bone structure and also enables the evaluation of the relationship between critical structures and potential implant sites. Purpose The aim of the study was to define the reliability of utilizing the analysis of textures from the periapical radiographic images obtained through Radiovisiography (RVG) in order to better plan for dental implantations. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted using 50 intraoral periapical radiographs which were obtained through RVG performed prior to the placement of implants. The radiographs were segregated based on anatomical locations i.e. 12 for the anterior maxilla, nine for the posterior maxilla, seven for the anterior mandible, and 22 for the posterior mandible. Each of the radiographs was visually assessed by four experienced examiners, namely a Prosthodontist E1, Periodontist E2, Oral surgeon E3, and Oral radiologist E4, which was then compared to an experienced operator's tactile perception during a pilot drill for implant placement. As a reference, the Lekholm and Zarb classification was provided to all the examiners for them to qualitatively assess the bone structure in the radiographs. Results The examiners' results were correlated with the assessment provided by the experienced operator. E1 and E4 successfully assessed 42% of the radiographs while E2 had the least success with only 26%. Of the 12 anterior maxillary radiographs, only eight were accurately assessed by E1. With respect to the posterior maxilla, all examiners correctly assessed four radiographs each. Of the seven anterior mandibular radiographs, except for E2, the rest correctly assessed three radiographs each. Of the 22 posterior mandibular radiographs, only nine were accurately assessed by E4. Conclusion Intraoral periapical radiographs obtained through RVG did not meet the desired parameters for assessing the bone quality during the planning stage for implants.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36694502
doi: 10.7759/cureus.32860
pmc: PMC9867846
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e32860Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, Sailasri et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Oral Implantol. 2009;35(3):130-5
pubmed: 19579524
Morphologie. 2008 Dec;92(299):162-70
pubmed: 19019718
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999 Feb;10(1):1-7
pubmed: 10196784
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007 Sep 01;8(6):82-8
pubmed: 17846675
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4(3):156-72
pubmed: 12516649
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Aug;22(8):789-801
pubmed: 21121957
Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2004 Oct;25(5):411-8
pubmed: 15559124
Interv Med Appl Sci. 2013 Dec;5(4):162-7
pubmed: 24381734
J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Sep;37(9):698-703
pubmed: 20492434
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2010 Feb;40(1):19-24
pubmed: 20498755
J Med Eng Technol. 2013 Jan;37(1):1-9
pubmed: 23094909
J Oral Implantol. 2015 Apr;41(2):125-31
pubmed: 23368722
Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Mar;19(2):519-24
pubmed: 24802628
J Craniofac Surg. 2020 Sep;31(6):1805-1808
pubmed: 32657993
J Bone Miner Metab. 2005;23(1):24-9
pubmed: 15616890
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
Calcif Tissue Int. 2007 Feb;80(2):97-102
pubmed: 17308991
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(6):20130088
pubmed: 24786136
J Bone Miner Metab. 2013 Jan;31(1):82-8
pubmed: 22886379
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Dec;50(12):1609-1616
pubmed: 33962826
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2016 Nov;136:89-96
pubmed: 27686706
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Jan-Feb;31(1):55-62
pubmed: 26478979
Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Jul/Aug;31(4):342-345
pubmed: 29953564
Med Phys. 2006 Sep;33(9):3546-56
pubmed: 17022251