Impact of enhancement filters of a CMOS system on halo artifact expression at the bone-to-implant interface.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of enhancement filters on the formation of halo artifacts in radiographs of dental implants obtained with a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) system. METHODS: Digital radiographs of dental implants placed in dry human mandibles were processed with the Noise Reduction smoothing filter, as well as the Sharpen 1, Sharpen 4, and Sharpen UM high-pass filters available in the CLINIVIEW™ software (Instrumentarium Dental, Tuusula, Finland). Subjective analysis involved evaluating the left, right, and apical surfaces of each implant for the presence of much, few, or no halo. The objective analysis involved measurement of the halo area using the Trainable Weka Segmentation plugin (ImageJ, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). Data were analyzed using Friedman's test (subjective analysis) and ANOVA (objective analysis) (α = 5%). RESULTS: In the subjective evaluation, the Sharpen 4 filter produced more radiographs with much halo present, and in the objective evaluation, a bigger halo area when compared to the original images and the Noise Reduction filter for all surfaces (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating dental implants, priority should be given to original images and those enhanced with smoothing filters since they exhibit fewer halo artifacts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Post-processing tools, such as enhancement filters, may improve the image quality and assist some diagnostic tasks. However, little is known regarding the impact of enhancement filters in halo formation on CMOS systems, which have been increasingly used in dental offices.

Detection of misfits at the abutment-prosthesis interface in the esthetic zone: Implications of the radiographic technique and the magnitude of the misfit.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Misfits in the abutment-prosthesis interface represent a setback for implant-supported prostheses. Periapical radiographs have been used as an auxiliary method in the evaluation of prosthesis fit to the abutments; however, the evidence supporting the use of this method is still restricted to studies of low to moderate quality. Furthermore, studies on the diagnostic accuracy of different periapical techniques used to detect misfits in the abutment-prosthesis interface, especially in the esthetic zone, are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the discrimination power of 3 periapical radiographic techniques in detecting misfits at the abutment-prosthesis interface in the esthetic zone and evaluate whether the magnitude of the misfit influenced the diagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 15 implants with an internal conical connection were installed in the central incisor region in polyamide jaws. Custom ceramic copings for cemented crowns were made by using a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) system. Misfits of 50, 100, and 150 µm were simulated by interposing 1, 2, or 3 50-µm-thick polyester strips at the abutment-prosthesis interface; the absence of the strip represented the control group. Digital radiographs were obtained by using film holders for the following periapical techniques: bisecting angle (PBA), standard paralleling (PSP), and modified paralleling (PMP). Two radiologists and 1 prosthodontist evaluated a total of 180 radiographs. The values of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) were regarded as a measure of diagnostic accuracy and subjected to the Friedman test with post hoc Durbin-Conover (α=.05). RESULTS: The PSP (Az=0.873) had higher Az values than the PBA (Az=0.753) for the 50-µm misfits (P<.05). Larger misfits resulted in greater accuracy than smaller misfits (P<.05). Interactions between the factors radiographic technique and misfit magnitude resulted in statistically significant differences for all comparisons (P<.05), except between the PSP for the 100-µm misfits (Az=0.976) and the PMP for the 150-µm misfits (Az=0.998). CONCLUSIONS: The PSP was more accurate than the PBA in detecting the 50-µm misfits at the abutment-prosthesis interface; larger misfits resulted in more accurate diagnoses, regardless of the technique used.