Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
August 22, 2026International Journal of Implant DentistryOpen Access

Accuracy of CBCT and dental-MRI for detecting peri-implant bone defects at single titanium implants: an in-vitro pilot study

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Authors

KHKatharina HartungHeidelberg UniversityNMNikolai MiotkHeidelberg UniversityALArne LauerGoethe University Frankfurt

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

In-vitro study demonstrates comparable diagnostic accuracy between dental MRI and CBCT for peri-implant bone defects, suggesting a viable radiation-free alternative.

Key Points

  • To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of optimized dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) compared to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for detecting and classifying peri-implant bone defects around titanium implants.
  • Inserted 48 titanium implants into bovine ribs, configuring 24 implants with standardized 1- to 4-wall defects (1 mm and 3 mm sizes) and 24 defect-free control implants.
  • Imaged all specimens using CBCT and 3 Tesla dMRI equipped with an intraoral coil and a metal-artifact-reducing CS-SEMAC sequence, followed by dual assessments by two independent readers.
  • Evaluated diagnostic performance via Cohen's kappa, sensitivity, specificity, exact McNemar tests, and Firth penalized-likelihood logistic regression.
  • For bone defect detection, CBCT achieved 100% sensitivity (95% CI 0.962–1.000) and 100% specificity (95% CI 0.962–1.000), while dMRI achieved 98% sensitivity (95% CI 0.927–0.998) and 100% specificity (95% CI 0.962–1.000; Firth regression p = 0.22), with inter-/intra-rater kappa of 0.958–1.000.
  • For defect classification, CBCT reached 86% sensitivity (95% CI 0.780–0.926) and 99% specificity (95% CI 0.985–0.995), while dMRI reached 84% sensitivity (95% CI 0.755–0.910) and 99% specificity (95% CI 0.985–0.995), showing no significant difference between modalities (Firth-adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38–1.88, p = 0.68).

Cite This Study

Hartung et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a895f0dca7ade938187d52fhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-026-00709-y
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Are the detection and dimensions of peri‐implant buccal bone defects influenced by different implant materials and their location? An experimental cone‐beam computed tomography study2026
  2. 2A Pilot Comparative Study of Multi‐Contrast Dental <scp>MRI</scp> and <scp>CBCT</scp> : Clinical Correlates of Disease Status and Inflammatory Burden in Periodontitis2026
  3. 3Are dental magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography techniques reliable alternatives for treatment planning dental implants? A systematic review and meta-analysis2025
  4. 4Metal artefact reduction improves cone-beam CT diagnosis of peri-implant bone defects regardless of adjacent implant position in endomass or exomass2026
  5. 5Dental photon-counting computed tomography for the assessment of Peri-Implant structures2025 · 2 citations