Influence of radiographic acquisition methods and visualization software programs on the detection of misfits at the implant-abutment interface: An ex vivo study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Misfits at the implant-prosthesis interface may compromise implant-supported prostheses. Periapical radiographs are frequently used to detect misfit and can be obtained by using digital or film-based systems; however, which radiographic acquisition method and visualization software program provides the greatest accuracy is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this ex vivo study was to evaluate the influence of 3 radiographic acquisition methods (complementary metal oxide semiconductor [CMOS] sensor, phosphor plates, and radiographic films) and 2 visualization software programs (proprietary and third-party) on the detection of misfits at the implant-prosthesis interface. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-two dental implants were placed in dry human mandibles. Misfits were simulated by inserting a 50-µm polyester strip at the implant-prosthesis interface; prosthetic crowns installed directly over the implant platforms were considered as controls. Standard parallel periapical radiographs were obtained by using a CMOS sensor, a phosphor plate, and radiographic films. Five dentists assessed the digital radiographs for the presence or absence of misfits at the implant-prosthesis interface by using the proprietary software program and a third-party software program; film-based radiographs were evaluated on a light box. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Az values) were compared (α=.05); sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values were also estimated. RESULTS: All diagnostic and Az values were higher for the phosphor plate than for the CMOS sensor and the film-based methods (P<.05), regardless of the viewing software program used (proprietary or third-party) (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of phosphor plates positively influenced the diagnostic accuracy for the detection of misfits at the implant-prosthesis interface, irrespective of the viewing software program used.

Does enhancement filter application increase the diagnostic accuracy of misfit detection at the implant-prosthesis interface?

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Misfits at the implant-prosthesis interface may increase complications in dental implants and affect peri-implant tissue health. Periapical radiographs are the most used imaging examinations for detecting misfits at the implant-prosthesis interface, although digital systems have largely replaced film-based radiographs. Whether postprocessing tools such as enhancement filters assist diagnosis by highlighting misfits is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of enhancement filter application in the diagnostic accuracy of misfit detection at the implant-prosthesis interface. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 32 dental implants were placed in dry human mandibles. A polyester strip was inserted at the implant-prosthesis interface to simulate a 50-µm misfit; prosthetic crowns installed directly on the implant platforms were used as controls. Standard paralleling periapical images were acquired by using a semidirect system (photostimulable phosphor plate) with the application of Highlight, Invert, and Colorization filters, as well as a direct system (metal oxide complementary semiconductor sensor) with filters Sharpness 3, Invert, and Pseudocolorization. Oral radiologists evaluated the images with and without the application of filters. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (Az values), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values were calculated. The Az values were compared with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves comparison test of the Epidat 3.1 software (α=.05). RESULTS: Although images without filter application presented descriptively higher diagnostic values than those with filter application, the Az values for images with and without filter application in both semidirect and direct systems showed no significant differences (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Enhancement filter application did not significantly influence the diagnostic accuracy of misfit detection at the implant-prosthesis interface.