A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects
Identifieur interne : 005429 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005428; suivant : 005430A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects
Auteurs : Meetal Dave ; Jonathan Davies ; Ron Wilson ; Richard PalmerSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2013-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Accuitomo, Artefact, Astra tech, Axial, Axial view, Bone block, Bone blocks, Bone defects, Bone loss, Cancellous, Cancellous bone, Cbct, Cbct images, Cbct machines, Cbct scans, Clin, Cone beam, Conventional periapical radiography, Coronal, Coronal sagittal, Coronal view, Defect, Dental implants, Dentistry, Dentomaxillofacial, Dentomaxillofacial radiology, Diagnostic accuracy, Digital intraoral, Exposure settings, Imaging, Imaging method, Imaging methods, Impl, Implant, Implant dentistry, Implant sites, Implants research, International endodontic journal, Interquartile range, Intraoral, Intraoral radiography, John wiley sons dave, Kappa statistics, Kappa values, Lcpa, Lcpas, Maxillofacial, Moderate agreement, Next generation, Oral impl, Oral surgery, Osteotomy, Osteotomy sites, Periapical, Periapical lesions, Periapical radiographs, Periapical radiography, Periimplant, Periimplant radiolucencies, Periimplant space, Radiograph, Radiographic, Radiography, Radiology, Radiolucencies, Radiolucency, Radiolucent, Radiolucent space, Sagittal, Slice interval, Slice thickness, Slideshow, Subjective image quality, Substantial agreement, Superior border, Tomography, Voxel size.
- Teeft :
- Accuitomo, Artefact, Astra tech, Axial, Axial view, Bone block, Bone blocks, Bone defects, Bone loss, Cancellous, Cancellous bone, Cbct, Cbct images, Cbct machines, Cbct scans, Clin, Cone beam, Conventional periapical radiography, Coronal, Coronal sagittal, Coronal view, Defect, Dental implants, Dentistry, Dentomaxillofacial, Dentomaxillofacial radiology, Diagnostic accuracy, Digital intraoral, Exposure settings, Imaging, Imaging method, Imaging methods, Impl, Implant, Implant dentistry, Implant sites, Implants research, International endodontic journal, Interquartile range, Intraoral, Intraoral radiography, John wiley sons dave, Kappa statistics, Kappa values, Lcpa, Lcpas, Maxillofacial, Moderate agreement, Next generation, Oral impl, Oral surgery, Osteotomy, Osteotomy sites, Periapical, Periapical lesions, Periapical radiographs, Periapical radiography, Periimplant, Periimplant radiolucencies, Periimplant space, Radiograph, Radiographic, Radiography, Radiology, Radiolucencies, Radiolucency, Radiolucent, Radiolucent space, Sagittal, Slice interval, Slice thickness, Slideshow, Subjective image quality, Substantial agreement, Superior border, Tomography, Voxel size.
Abstract
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) at detecting peri‐implant bone defects.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02473.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08DLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects</title><author><name sortKey="Dave, Meetal" sort="Dave, Meetal" uniqKey="Dave M" first="Meetal" last="Dave">Meetal Dave</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Davies, Jonathan" sort="Davies, Jonathan" uniqKey="Davies J" first="Jonathan" last="Davies">Jonathan Davies</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dental & Maxillofacial Radiological Imaging, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals Foundation Trust, SE1 9RT, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Wilson, Ron" sort="Wilson, Ron" uniqKey="Wilson R" first="Ron" last="Wilson">Ron Wilson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Palmer, Richard" sort="Palmer, Richard" uniqKey="Palmer R" first="Richard" last="Palmer">Richard Palmer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry,King's College London Dental InstituteTower Wing,Guy's Hospital Campus,London SE1 9RTUKTel.: +44 207 188 4940Fax: +44 207 188 1583e‐mail</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: richard.m.palmer@kcl.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D</idno><date when="2013" year="2013">2013</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02473.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005429</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005429</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects</title><author><name sortKey="Dave, Meetal" sort="Dave, Meetal" uniqKey="Dave M" first="Meetal" last="Dave">Meetal Dave</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Davies, Jonathan" sort="Davies, Jonathan" uniqKey="Davies J" first="Jonathan" last="Davies">Jonathan Davies</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dental & Maxillofacial Radiological Imaging, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals Foundation Trust, SE1 9RT, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Wilson, Ron" sort="Wilson, Ron" uniqKey="Wilson R" first="Ron" last="Wilson">Ron Wilson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Palmer, Richard" sort="Palmer, Richard" uniqKey="Palmer R" first="Richard" last="Palmer">Richard Palmer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry,King's College London Dental InstituteTower Wing,Guy's Hospital Campus,London SE1 9RTUKTel.: +44 207 188 4940Fax: +44 207 188 1583e‐mail</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: richard.m.palmer@kcl.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">24</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="671">671</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="678">678</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><date type="published" when="2013-06">2013-06</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Accuitomo</term><term>Artefact</term><term>Astra tech</term><term>Axial</term><term>Axial view</term><term>Bone block</term><term>Bone blocks</term><term>Bone defects</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Cancellous</term><term>Cancellous bone</term><term>Cbct</term><term>Cbct images</term><term>Cbct machines</term><term>Cbct scans</term><term>Clin</term><term>Cone beam</term><term>Conventional periapical radiography</term><term>Coronal</term><term>Coronal sagittal</term><term>Coronal view</term><term>Defect</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Dentomaxillofacial</term><term>Dentomaxillofacial radiology</term><term>Diagnostic accuracy</term><term>Digital intraoral</term><term>Exposure settings</term><term>Imaging</term><term>Imaging method</term><term>Imaging methods</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant dentistry</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International endodontic journal</term><term>Interquartile range</term><term>Intraoral</term><term>Intraoral radiography</term><term>John wiley sons dave</term><term>Kappa statistics</term><term>Kappa values</term><term>Lcpa</term><term>Lcpas</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Moderate agreement</term><term>Next generation</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral surgery</term><term>Osteotomy</term><term>Osteotomy sites</term><term>Periapical</term><term>Periapical lesions</term><term>Periapical radiographs</term><term>Periapical radiography</term><term>Periimplant</term><term>Periimplant radiolucencies</term><term>Periimplant space</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiography</term><term>Radiology</term><term>Radiolucencies</term><term>Radiolucency</term><term>Radiolucent</term><term>Radiolucent space</term><term>Sagittal</term><term>Slice interval</term><term>Slice thickness</term><term>Slideshow</term><term>Subjective image quality</term><term>Substantial agreement</term><term>Superior border</term><term>Tomography</term><term>Voxel size</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Accuitomo</term><term>Artefact</term><term>Astra tech</term><term>Axial</term><term>Axial view</term><term>Bone block</term><term>Bone blocks</term><term>Bone defects</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Cancellous</term><term>Cancellous bone</term><term>Cbct</term><term>Cbct images</term><term>Cbct machines</term><term>Cbct scans</term><term>Clin</term><term>Cone beam</term><term>Conventional periapical radiography</term><term>Coronal</term><term>Coronal sagittal</term><term>Coronal view</term><term>Defect</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Dentomaxillofacial</term><term>Dentomaxillofacial radiology</term><term>Diagnostic accuracy</term><term>Digital intraoral</term><term>Exposure settings</term><term>Imaging</term><term>Imaging method</term><term>Imaging methods</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant dentistry</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International endodontic journal</term><term>Interquartile range</term><term>Intraoral</term><term>Intraoral radiography</term><term>John wiley sons dave</term><term>Kappa statistics</term><term>Kappa values</term><term>Lcpa</term><term>Lcpas</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Moderate agreement</term><term>Next generation</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral surgery</term><term>Osteotomy</term><term>Osteotomy sites</term><term>Periapical</term><term>Periapical lesions</term><term>Periapical radiographs</term><term>Periapical radiography</term><term>Periimplant</term><term>Periimplant radiolucencies</term><term>Periimplant space</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiography</term><term>Radiology</term><term>Radiolucencies</term><term>Radiolucency</term><term>Radiolucent</term><term>Radiolucent space</term><term>Sagittal</term><term>Slice interval</term><term>Slice thickness</term><term>Slideshow</term><term>Subjective image quality</term><term>Substantial agreement</term><term>Superior border</term><term>Tomography</term><term>Voxel size</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) at detecting peri‐implant bone defects.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>cbct</json:string><json:string>accuitomo</json:string><json:string>periapical</json:string><json:string>lcpas</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>lcpa</json:string><json:string>tomography</json:string><json:string>cone beam</json:string><json:string>radiograph</json:string><json:string>coronal</json:string><json:string>periimplant</json:string><json:string>intraoral</json:string><json:string>radiology</json:string><json:string>bone defects</json:string><json:string>radiography</json:string><json:string>osteotomy</json:string><json:string>sagittal</json:string><json:string>bone block</json:string><json:string>diagnostic accuracy</json:string><json:string>radiolucency</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial</json:string><json:string>radiographic</json:string><json:string>imaging</json:string><json:string>imaging methods</json:string><json:string>impl</json:string><json:string>radiolucent</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>artefact</json:string><json:string>slideshow</json:string><json:string>radiolucencies</json:string><json:string>cancellous</json:string><json:string>dentomaxillofacial</json:string><json:string>dentomaxillofacial radiology</json:string><json:string>interquartile range</json:string><json:string>osteotomy sites</json:string><json:string>periimplant space</json:string><json:string>periapical radiographs</json:string><json:string>defect</json:string><json:string>implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>cbct images</json:string><json:string>conventional periapical radiography</json:string><json:string>coronal sagittal</json:string><json:string>cbct scans</json:string><json:string>radiolucent space</json:string><json:string>next generation</json:string><json:string>bone blocks</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>cbct machines</json:string><json:string>slice thickness</json:string><json:string>intraoral radiography</json:string><json:string>voxel size</json:string><json:string>kappa values</json:string><json:string>oral surgery</json:string><json:string>international endodontic journal</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>digital intraoral</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>subjective image quality</json:string><json:string>exposure settings</json:string><json:string>kappa statistics</json:string><json:string>john wiley sons dave</json:string><json:string>superior border</json:string><json:string>substantial agreement</json:string><json:string>periimplant radiolucencies</json:string><json:string>coronal view</json:string><json:string>axial view</json:string><json:string>periapical radiography</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>imaging method</json:string><json:string>cancellous bone</json:string><json:string>periapical lesions</json:string><json:string>implant sites</json:string><json:string>astra tech</json:string><json:string>slice interval</json:string><json:string>moderate agreement</json:string><json:string>axial</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Meetal Dave</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Jonathan Davies</name><affiliations><json:string>Dental & Maxillofacial Radiological Imaging, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals Foundation Trust, SE1 9RT, London, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ron Wilson</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Richard Palmer</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</json:string><json:string>Department of Restorative Dentistry,King's College London Dental InstituteTower Wing,Guy's Hospital Campus,London SE1 9RTUKTel.: +44 207 188 4940Fax: +44 207 188 1583e‐mail</json:string><json:string>E-mail: richard.m.palmer@kcl.ac.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>cone beam computed tomography</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental radiography</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>peri‐implant radiolucency</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR2473</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-88B1LLHN-1</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) at detecting peri‐implant bone defects.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.24</score><pdfWordCount>6081</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>40523</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>20</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>154</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects</title><pmid><json:string>22458628</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>24</volume><issue>6</issue><pages><first>671</first><last>678</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Original Research</value></json:item></subject></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2012-03-13</json:string><json:string>1990s</json:string><json:string>2002</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Guy’s Hospital Campus, London, SE</json:string><json:string>J. Morita MFG. Corp</json:string><json:string>UK Jonathan Davies, Dental</json:string><json:string>Imaging Sciences International</json:string><json:string>College London Dental Institute, Tower Wing</json:string><json:string>SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel</json:string><json:string>Hospitals Foundation Trust, London, SE</json:string><json:string>Morita Mfg, Corp</json:string><json:string>Digora® Optime Soredex Brochure</json:string><json:string>RT UK Tel</json:string><json:string>College London Dental Institute Tower Wing, Guy</json:string><json:string>UK Corresponding</json:string><json:string>Richard Palmer Department of Restorative Dentistry, King</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Richard Palmer</json:string><json:string>On</json:string><json:string>John Wiley</json:string><json:string>J. Morita</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Kyoto</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Finland</json:string><json:string>Helsinki</json:string><json:string>Palo Alto</json:string><json:string>Seattle</json:string><json:string>USA</json:string><json:string>Japan</json:string><json:string>CA</json:string><json:string>WA</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Vandenberghe et al. 2008</json:string><json:string>Borg et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Mol 2004</json:string><json:string>SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel 2011</json:string><json:string>Marmulla et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Sewerin et al. (1997)</json:string><json:string>Pinsky et al. 2006</json:string><json:string>Ludlow et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Chiodo et al. 2006</json:string><json:string>Sogur et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Sewerin et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Borg et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Stavropoulos & Wenzel 2007</json:string><json:string>Choi et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Liang et al. 2010</json:string><json:string>Stratemann et al. 2008</json:string><json:string>Durack et al. 2011</json:string><json:string>Mol & Balasundaram 2008</json:string><json:string>Hashimoto et al. 2006</json:string><json:string>Noujeim et al. (2009)</json:string><json:string>Albrektsson et al. 1986</json:string><json:string>Patel 2009</json:string><json:string>Durack et al. (2011)</json:string><json:string>Mengel et al. (2006)</json:string><json:string>Estrela et al. (2008)</json:string><json:string>Bredbenner & Haug 2000</json:string><json:string>Landis & Koch 1977</json:string><json:string>Dave et al</json:string><json:string>Scarfe et al. 2006</json:string><json:string>Sogur et al. (2007)</json:string><json:string>Lascala et al. 2004</json:string><json:string>Morner-Svalling et al. (2003)</json:string><json:string>Kavadella et al. 2006</json:string><json:string>Kobayashi et al. 2004</json:string><json:string>Razavi et al. 2010</json:string><json:string>Matsuda et al. (2001)</json:string><json:string>Harris et al. 2002</json:string><json:string>Parsell et al. 1998</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-88B1LLHN-1</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2013</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2013</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02473.x</json:string></doi><id>A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Wiley Publishing Ltd</publisher><availability><licence>© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2013-06"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Meetal</forename><surname>Dave</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Restorative Dentistry</orgName><orgName>King's College London Dental Institute</orgName><address><street>Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus</street><settlement type="city">London</settlement><postCode>SE1 9RT</postCode><country key="GB">UK</country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Jonathan</forename><surname>Davies</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Dental & Maxillofacial Radiological Imaging</orgName><orgName>Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals Foundation Trust</orgName><address><settlement type="city">London</settlement><postCode>SE1 9RT</postCode><country key="GB">UK</country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Ron</forename><surname>Wilson</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Restorative Dentistry</orgName><orgName>King's College London Dental Institute</orgName><address><street>Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus</street><settlement type="city">London</settlement><postCode>SE1 9RT</postCode><country key="GB">UK</country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Richard</forename><surname>Palmer</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Restorative Dentistry</orgName><orgName>King's College London Dental Institute</orgName><address><street>Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus</street><settlement type="city">London</settlement><postCode>SE1 9RT</postCode><country key="GB">UK</country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Corresponding author: Richard Palmer Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute Tower Wing, Guy's Hospital Campus, London SE1 9RT UK Tel.: +44 207 188 4940 Fax: +44 207 188 1583 e‐mail richard.m.palmer@kcl.ac.uk</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-88B1LLHN-1</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02473.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR2473</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR2473.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.2013.24.issue-6</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">24</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="671">671</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="678">678</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><date type="published" when="2013-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract style="main" xml:id="clr2473-abs-0001"><head>Abstract</head>
Objective
<p>To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography (<hi rend="fc">CBCT</hi>) at detecting peri‐implant bone defects.</p>
Materials and methods
<p>Implants were placed in fresh bovine ribs in osteotomy sites of varying diameter (five with no peri‐implant space, five with a 0.35 mm space, five with a 0.675 mm space) and imaged using (i) digital long cone periapical radiographs (<hi rend="fc">LCPA</hi>s), (ii) limited volume <hi rend="fc">CBCT</hi> using 3D Accuitomo 80<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> and (iii) large volume <hi rend="fc">CBCT</hi> using i‐<hi rend="fc">CAT</hi> Next Generation<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>. Images from each were randomly presented to nine examiners on two occasions. Confidence in diagnosing the presence or absence of a peri‐implant radiolucency was recorded on a five‐point scale. Receiver Operating Characteristic (<hi rend="fc">ROC</hi>) analysis and Kappa tests were performed.</p>
Results
<p>Digital <hi rend="fc">LCPA</hi>s were better at diagnosing a peri‐implant bone defect when the peri‐implant space was 0.35 mm (<hi rend="italic">P</hi> < 0.02). As the peri‐implant space increased to 0.675 mm, there was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the three imaging methods. Sensitivity of <hi rend="fc">LCPA</hi>s (100) and Accuitomo (97.8) was better than i‐<hi rend="fc">CAT</hi> (64.4) (<hi rend="italic">P</hi> < 0.02). <hi rend="fc">LCPA</hi>s and i‐<hi rend="fc">CAT</hi> had significantly better specificity and positive predictive value than Accuitomo. The negative predictive value of <hi rend="fc">LCPA</hi> was significantly better than i‐<hi rend="fc">CAT</hi>. <hi rend="fc">LCPA</hi>s showed better intra‐examiner and inter‐examiner agreement than <hi rend="fc">CBCT</hi>.</p>
Conclusion
<p>Within the limitations of this study, <hi rend="fc">LCPA</hi>s are a reliable and valid method of detecting circumferential peri‐implant bone defects and performed significantly better than <hi rend="fc">CBCT</hi>.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords><term xml:id="clr2473-kwd-0001">cone beam computed tomography</term><term xml:id="clr2473-kwd-0002">dental implants</term><term xml:id="clr2473-kwd-0003">dental radiography</term><term xml:id="clr2473-kwd-0004">peri‐implant radiolucency</term></keywords><keywords rend="articleCategory"><term>Original Research</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component type="serialArticle" version="2.0" xml:id="clr2473" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title type="short">Clin. Oral Impl. Res.</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="60"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2013.24.issue-6</doi><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S</copyright><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="24">24</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">6</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2013-06">June 2013</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" position="120" status="forIssue" type="article"><doi>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02473.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR2473"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count number="8" type="pageTotal"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="articleCategory">Original Research</title><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S</copyright><eventGroup><event date="2012-02-25" type="manuscriptAccepted"></event><event agent="SPS" date="2012-03-13" type="xmlCreated"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2012-03-27"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2012-03-27"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2013-04-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.6.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-10-04"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">671</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">678</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><lineatedText><line><b>Corresponding author:</b></line><line><i>Richard Palmer</i></line><line>Department of Restorative Dentistry,</line><line>King's College London Dental Institute</line><line>Tower Wing,</line><line>Guy's Hospital Campus,</line><line>London SE1 9RT</line><line>UK</line><line>Tel.: +44 207 188 4940</line><line>Fax: +44 207 188 1583</line><line>e‐mail <email>richard.m.palmer@kcl.ac.uk</email></line></lineatedText></correspondenceTo><selfCitationGroup><citation type="self" xml:id="clr2473-cit-0041">Dave M, Davies J, Wilson R, Palmer R. A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri-implant bone defects. <i>Clin. Oral Impl. Res.</i> <b>24</b>, 2013, 671–678</citation></selfCitationGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR2473.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><titleGroup><title type="main">A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects</title><title type="shortAuthors">Dave et al</title></titleGroup><creators><creator affiliationRef="#clr2473-aff-0001" creatorRole="author" xml:id="clr2473-cr-0001"><personName><givenNames>Meetal</givenNames> <familyName>Dave</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#clr2473-aff-0002" creatorRole="author" xml:id="clr2473-cr-0002"><personName><givenNames>Jonathan</givenNames> <familyName>Davies</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#clr2473-aff-0001" creatorRole="author" xml:id="clr2473-cr-0003"><personName><givenNames>Ron</givenNames> <familyName>Wilson</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#clr2473-aff-0001" corresponding="yes" creatorRole="author" xml:id="clr2473-cr-0004"><personName><givenNames>Richard</givenNames> <familyName>Palmer</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation countryCode="GB" type="organization" xml:id="clr2473-aff-0001"><orgDiv>Department of Restorative Dentistry</orgDiv> <orgName>King's College London Dental Institute</orgName> <address><street>Tower Wing</street> <street>Guy's Hospital Campus</street> <city>London</city> <postCode>SE1 9RT</postCode> <country>UK</country></address></affiliation><affiliation countryCode="GB" type="organization" xml:id="clr2473-aff-0002"><orgDiv>Dental & Maxillofacial Radiological Imaging</orgDiv> <orgName>Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals Foundation Trust</orgName> <address><city>London</city> <postCode>SE1 9RT</postCode> <country>UK</country></address></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup type="author"><keyword xml:id="clr2473-kwd-0001">cone beam computed tomography</keyword><keyword xml:id="clr2473-kwd-0002">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="clr2473-kwd-0003">dental radiography</keyword><keyword xml:id="clr2473-kwd-0004">peri‐implant radiolucency</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:id="clr2473-abs-0001"><title type="main">Abstract</title><section xml:id="clr2473-sec-0001"><title type="main">Objective</title><p>To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography (<fc>CBCT</fc>) at detecting peri‐implant bone defects.</p></section><section xml:id="clr2473-sec-0002"><title type="main">Materials and methods</title><p>Implants were placed in fresh bovine ribs in osteotomy sites of varying diameter (five with no peri‐implant space, five with a 0.35 mm space, five with a 0.675 mm space) and imaged using (i) digital long cone periapical radiographs (<fc>LCPA</fc>s), (ii) limited volume <fc>CBCT</fc> using 3D Accuitomo 80<sup>®</sup> and (iii) large volume <fc>CBCT</fc> using i‐<fc>CAT</fc> Next Generation<sup>®</sup>. Images from each were randomly presented to nine examiners on two occasions. Confidence in diagnosing the presence or absence of a peri‐implant radiolucency was recorded on a five‐point scale. Receiver Operating Characteristic (<fc>ROC</fc>) analysis and Kappa tests were performed.</p></section><section xml:id="clr2473-sec-0003"><title type="main">Results</title><p>Digital <fc>LCPA</fc>s were better at diagnosing a peri‐implant bone defect when the peri‐implant space was 0.35 mm (<i>P</i> < 0.02). As the peri‐implant space increased to 0.675 mm, there was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the three imaging methods. Sensitivity of <fc>LCPA</fc>s (100) and Accuitomo (97.8) was better than i‐<fc>CAT</fc> (64.4) (<i>P</i> < 0.02). <fc>LCPA</fc>s and i‐<fc>CAT</fc> had significantly better specificity and positive predictive value than Accuitomo. The negative predictive value of <fc>LCPA</fc> was significantly better than i‐<fc>CAT</fc>. <fc>LCPA</fc>s showed better intra‐examiner and inter‐examiner agreement than <fc>CBCT</fc>.</p></section><section xml:id="clr2473-sec-0004"><title type="main">Conclusion</title><p>Within the limitations of this study, <fc>LCPA</fc>s are a reliable and valid method of detecting circumferential peri‐implant bone defects and performed significantly better than <fc>CBCT</fc>.</p></section></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Meetal</namePart><namePart type="family">Dave</namePart><affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jonathan</namePart><namePart type="family">Davies</namePart><affiliation>Dental & Maxillofacial Radiological Imaging, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals Foundation Trust, SE1 9RT, London, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ron</namePart><namePart type="family">Wilson</namePart><affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Richard</namePart><namePart type="family">Palmer</namePart><affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, Tower WingGuy's Hospital Campus, SE1 9RT, London, UK</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Restorative Dentistry,King's College London Dental InstituteTower Wing,Guy's Hospital Campus,London SE1 9RTUKTel.: +44 207 188 4940Fax: +44 207 188 1583e‐mail</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: richard.m.palmer@kcl.ac.uk</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2013-06</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2012-03-13</dateCreated><dateValid encoding="w3cdtf">2012-02-25</dateValid><edition>Dave M, Davies J, Wilson R, Palmer R. A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri-implant bone defects. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 24, 2013, 671–678</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2013</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><abstract>To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) at detecting peri‐implant bone defects.</abstract><abstract>Implants were placed in fresh bovine ribs in osteotomy sites of varying diameter (five with no peri‐implant space, five with a 0.35 mm space, five with a 0.675 mm space) and imaged using (i) digital long cone periapical radiographs (LCPAs), (ii) limited volume CBCT using 3D Accuitomo 80® and (iii) large volume CBCT using i‐CAT Next Generation®. Images from each were randomly presented to nine examiners on two occasions. Confidence in diagnosing the presence or absence of a peri‐implant radiolucency was recorded on a five‐point scale. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and Kappa tests were performed.</abstract><abstract>Digital LCPAs were better at diagnosing a peri‐implant bone defect when the peri‐implant space was 0.35 mm (P < 0.02). As the peri‐implant space increased to 0.675 mm, there was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the three imaging methods. Sensitivity of LCPAs (100) and Accuitomo (97.8) was better than i‐CAT (64.4) (P < 0.02). LCPAs and i‐CAT had significantly better specificity and positive predictive value than Accuitomo. The negative predictive value of LCPA was significantly better than i‐CAT. LCPAs showed better intra‐examiner and inter‐examiner agreement than CBCT.</abstract><abstract>Within the limitations of this study, LCPAs are a reliable and valid method of detecting circumferential peri‐implant bone defects and performed significantly better than CBCT.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>cone beam computed tomography</topic><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>dental radiography</topic><topic>peri‐implant radiolucency</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Clin. Oral Impl. Res.</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>Original Research</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>2013</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>24</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>6</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>671</start><end>678</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-88B1LLHN-1</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02473.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR2473</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005429 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005429 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:A8AECF11B6FB570FFA79D5DB3E78A4D49F23D08D
|texte= A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri‐implant bone defects
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |