ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithm of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on the diagnostic accuracy of fenestration and dehiscence around dental implants. METHODS: Twenty-three dental implants were placed adjacent to the dehiscence and 23 adjacent to the fenestration defects on bovine bone blocks. The blocks were scanned with CBCT unit in two modes, with and without MAR algorithm. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves (Az value), specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were determined for all modes. RESULTS: For both defects, the Az values were higher in off MAR condition. The values of sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, were higher in off MAR condition for both defects. However, the specificity in both defects in the two modes was equal. CONCLUSION: The MAR algorithm in CBCT unit may not be helpful in increasing the diagnostic accuracy of fenestration and dehiscence around dental implants.
Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Algorithms , Animals , Artifacts , Cattle , Cone-Beam Computed Tomography , MetalsABSTRACT
Introduction: Periodontitis is an inflammatory periodontal disease that leads to tooth loss. Recently laser has been introduced as an alternative treatment for periodontitis. The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of Erbium-doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Er:YAG) laser with ultrasonic scaler in patients with moderate chronic periodontitis. Methods: In this randomized single-blind clinical trial, 27 patients with moderate chronic periodontitis were selected. One quadrant of the patients was treated by Er:YAG laser and the other one by ultrasonic scaler. Clinical parameters, including periodontal pocket depth (PPD), papillary bleeding index (PBI) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured before, as well as 6 and 12 weeks after treatment. Data were analyzed by SPSS 20 software using Friedman test, paired t test, independent t test and Mann-Whitney test. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results: The means of clinical parameters in both groups were significantly improved in the first and second follow-ups (P < 0.001). Although the means of PPD, PBI and CAL were slightly higher in the laser group than in the ultrasonic group, the differences were not statistically significant between these two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Although both ultrasonic scaler and Er:YAG laser could effectively improve clinical periodontal parameters, the results did not reveal the superiority of Er:YAG laser over ultrasonic scaler or vice versa.
