Comparison of digital protocols for the measurement of peri-implant marginal bone loss

Background The measurement of peri-implant marginal bone loss is currently carried out using digital methods of radiographic analysis assisted by various types of software. The purpose of this study was to compare the characteristics of three different softwares: specific radiology software for the development and visualization of radiological images in DICOM format (3Dicom Viewer®), advanced level software for professional editing of bitmap images (or raster graphics) (Adobe Photoshop®), and mid-level software for processing bitmap-type images, programmed in Java and in the public domain (ImageJ®). Material and Methods It was verified that the three softwares used are valid for the measurement of peri-implant marginal bone loss provided that the appropriate protocol is fulfilled. Results The results showed no significant differences between Adobe Photoshop® and ImageJ® with respect to 3Dicom Viewer® in the measurements of mesial and distal bone loss of the implants, without influence of the dental sector where they were located. Conclusions The measurements made with ImageJ® looked more like those of the control software (3Dicom Viewer®) than those of Adobe Photoshop®, but with a greater degree of dispersion. Thus, Adobe Photoshop® is a slightly inaccurate method but with less dispersion. Key words:Digital measurement, measurement software, peri-implant marginal bone loss, implants.

[1]  C. Ghelardoni,et al.  Soft tissue and crestal bone changes around implants with platform-switched abutments placed nonsubmerged at subcrestal position: a 2-year clinical and radiographic evaluation. , 2015, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[2]  C. Lindh,et al.  Marginal bone level changes and implant stability after loading are not influenced by baseline microstructural bone characteristics: 1-year follow-up. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[3]  A. Al-Kheraif,et al.  Effect of oral hygiene maintenance on HbA1c levels and peri-implant parameters around immediately-loaded dental implants placed in type-2 diabetic patients: 2 years follow-up. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[4]  M. Cassetta,et al.  Early peri-implant bone loss: a prospective cohort study. , 2015, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[5]  J. Wennström,et al.  Bone level changes at axial- and non-axial-positioned implants supporting fixed partial dentures. A 5-year retrospective longitudinal study. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  P. Galindo-Moreno,et al.  Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant diseases. , 2014, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[7]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[8]  J. Szymańska,et al.  Marginal bone loss around dental implants with various types of implant-abutment connection in the same patient , 2017 .

[9]  R. Schmelzeisen,et al.  Comparison of the late results of mandibular reconstruction using nonvascularized or vascularized grafts and dental implants. , 1999, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[10]  M. Nevins,et al.  Assessment of Marginal Peri-implant Bone-Level Short-Length Implants Compared with Standard Implants Supporting Single Crowns in a Controlled Clinical Trial: 12-Month Follow-up. , 2016, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[11]  D. Cochran,et al.  Initial implant position determines the magnitude of crestal bone remodeling. , 2004, Journal of periodontology.

[12]  E. Stellini,et al.  Splinted and unsplinted short implants in mandibles: a retrospective evaluation with 5 to 16 years of follow-up. , 2013, Journal of periodontology.

[13]  R. Palmer,et al.  A comparison of cone beam computed tomography and conventional periapical radiography at detecting peri-implant bone defects. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  M. Chiapasco,et al.  Implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven-year prospective study. , 2003, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  M. Trulsson,et al.  Occlusion on implants - is there a problem? , 2012, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[16]  M. Peñarrocha,et al.  Radiologic study of marginal bone loss around 108 dental implants and its relationship to smoking, implant location, and morphology. , 2004, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[17]  R. Gheisari,et al.  Comparison of the Marginal Bone Loss in One-stage versus Two-stage Implant Surgery , 2017, Journal of dentistry.

[18]  H. De Bruyn,et al.  A prospective, split‐mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment , 2017, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[19]  M. Chiapasco,et al.  Short (8-mm) dental implants in the rehabilitation of partial and complete edentulism: a 3- to 14-year longitudinal study. , 2006, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[20]  T. Lundgren,et al.  Crestal bone changes around implants with reduced abutment diameter placed non-submerged and at subcrestal positions: a 1-year radiographic evaluation. , 2010, Journal of periodontology.

[21]  S. Rattanamongkolgul,et al.  Factors affecting soft tissue level around anterior maxillary single-tooth implants. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[22]  M. Peñarrocha-Diago,et al.  Influence of the prosthetic arm length (palatal position) of zygomatic implants upon patient satisfaction , 2016, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[23]  M. Cassetta,et al.  Peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched Morse taper connection implants: a prospective 60-month follow-up study. , 2016, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.