CBCT vs other imaging modalities to assess peri-implant bone and diagnose complications: a systematic review.
CBCT vs other imaging modalities to assess peri-implant bone and diagnose complications: a systematic review.
复制标题
CBCT 与其他成像方式评估种植体周围骨和诊断并发症的比较：系统评价。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Salmon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Jacobs;M. Vranckx;Tony Vanderstuyft;M. Quirynen;B. Salmon
目的
本系统综述的目的是评价CBCT与2D成像和临床金标准技术相比在种植体周围骨缺损检测和测量中的诊断价值。
材料和方法
使用MEDLINE、Embase和Web of Science数据库进行文献检索，检索时间截止至2017年7月。本综述包括使用不同成像模式评估和测量种植体周围骨缺损的临床、离体、体外和动物研究。两位评审员进行了数据提取和定性分析。使用QUADAS-2工具审查了每项研究的方法学质量。
结果
初步检索发现了2849篇独特的论文。对60篇文章进行了全文分析。在本综述中，9项研究被认为有资格纳入定性分析。CBCT在近中远中缺损检测和测量方面与口内放射摄影相似。额外的颊舌可视化以及种植体周围骨缺损的体积和形态评估是CBCT 3D可视化的主要优势。然而，必须注意金属伪影掩盖骨整合、浅骨缺损和其他种植体周围射线可透性，从而阻碍骨内病变的早期诊断。
结论
本综述未提供证据支持使用CBCT作为标准术后程序来评价种植体周围骨。到目前为止，我们在临床上被迫保持与口内放射摄影，尽管固有的局限性有关的有限的视野和二维重叠。术后植入物评估的3D成像方法至关重要，因此进一步开发优化和无伪影的CBCT方案必不可少。
AIM
The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic value of CBCT compared with 2D imaging and clinical gold standard techniques in peri-implant bone defect detection and measurement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases up to July 2017. Clinical, ex vivo, in vitro and animal studies that assessed and measured peri-implant bone defects using different imaging modalities were included in this review. Two reviewers performed data extraction and qualitative analysis. The methodological quality of each study was reviewed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
RESULTS
The initial search revealed 2849 unique papers. Full-text analysis was performed on 60 articles. For the present review, nine studies were considered eligible to be included for qualitative analysis. CBCT performed similar to intraoral radiography in mesiodistal defect detection and measurements. Additional buccolingual visualisation and volumetric and morphological assessment of peri-implant bone defects are major advantages of 3D visualisation with CBCT. Nevertheless, one must be aware of metal artefacts masking osseointegration, shallow bony defects and other peri-implant radiolucencies, thus impeding early diagnosis of intrabony lesions.
CONCLUSIONS
The present review did not provide evidence to support the use of CBCT as standard postoperative procedure to evaluate peri-implant bone. Up to date, we are clinically forced to remain with intraoral radiography, notwithstanding the inherent limitations related to restricted field of view and two-dimensional overlap. A 3D imaging approach for postoperative implant evaluation is crucial, making further development of an optimised and artefact-free CBCT protocol indispensable.