Does cone-beam CT convex triangular field of view influence the image shape distortion of high-density materials?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the distortion of high-density materials using two CBCT devices presenting convex triangular and cylindrical fields of view (FOVs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four high-density cylinders were individually placed in a polymethylmethacrylate phantom. 192 CBCT scans were acquired using the convex triangular and cylindrical FOVs of Veraviewepocs® R100 (R100) and Veraview® X800 (X800) devices. Using HorosTM's software, two oral radiologists determined the cylinders' horizontal and vertical dimensional alterations. Nine oral radiologists subjectively identified each cylinder's axial shape distortion. Statistical analysis comprised Multiway ANOVA (α = 5%), and the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: The distortion in the axial plane was greater in the convex triangular FOVs for both devices in almost all the materials (p < 0.05). The evaluators subjectively identified a shape distortion in both FOVs for R100 device (p < 0.001), while no distortion was identified for X800 device (p = 0.620). A vertical magnification of all materials was observed in both FOVs for both devices (p < 0.05). No differences among vertical regions (p = 0.988) nor FOVs (p = 0.544) were found for the R100 device, while all materials showed higher magnification in all regions in the cylindrical FOV (p < 0.001) of the X800 device. CONCLUSIONS: The convex triangular FOV influenced the axial distortion of the high-density materials in both devices. A vertical magnification was observed in both FOVs of both devices, but it was greater in the cylindrical FOV of the X800 device.

Evaluation of the Maxillary Sinus of Patients with Maxillary Posterior Implants: A CBCT Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: During oral rehabilitation, dental implants in the posterior maxilla can penetrate the maxillary sinus. The aim was to evaluate the presence of maxillary sinus abnormalities in patients with dental implants in the posterior maxillary region using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study, and CBCT scans of 199 patients (459 dental implants) were evaluated. Implants were assessed according to their relative location to the maxillary sinus floor (up to 2 mm from the maxillary sinus cortex, within 2 mm to intimate contact with the maxillary sinus cortex, apical third inside the maxillary sinus, two-thirds or more inside the maxillary sinus) and bone-fixation tissue (Alveolar ridge or Bone graft). Maxillary sinus abnormalities were classified. Kappa and Weighted Kappa and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied. RESULTS: A higher prevalence of mucosal thickening and non-specific opacification were observed in implants located within 2 mm to intimate contact with the cortex of the maxillary sinus floor. Of the 66 implants with apical thirds located inside the maxillary sinus, 31 (46.7%) were associated with sinus abnormalities and of all implants (n = 5) with two-thirds or more located inside the maxillary sinus, all of these were associated with sinus abnormalities. No association was observed in relation to implant bone-fixation tissue. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a significant association between dental implant placement near or within the sinus and sinus abnormalities, mainly mucosal thickening and non-specific opacification.