ArticleOral radiology2025
Challenges in detecting various peri-implant bone defects on modified intraoral oblique radiographic projections: evaluation of an artificial mandibular model.
Article in Oral radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of oblique radiographic projection using the intraoral paralleling technique in detecting various peri-implant bone defects.
methodsArtificial mandibular models with appropriate radiopacity were created. An alveolar bone model without bone defects and models with 12 types of peri-implant bone defects (buccal, circumferential, and mixed types with different widths and depths) were created. A total of 273 images were obtained with orthoradial projections and 10-, 20-, and 30-degree oblique projections using a modified receptor holder. Two observers independently evaluated the images to detect bone defects. The grayscale values (GVs) of the peri-implant region and the adjacent area were measured and compared. The relationship between the GV and the observers' results was examined. The area under the curve (AUC) and inter-observer agreement were calculated.
resultsCircumferential and mixed bone defects were detected on the orthoradial projections, while buccal defects were not detected. However, the detection of buccal defects was markedly improved using the oblique projections. In particular, the highest detection rates were obtained using the 20-degree oblique projection. There were no significant correlations between the GV and the bone defect detection rate. The AUCs for the two observers were 0.712 and 0.669. The inter-observer agreement was 0.502.
conclusionsCompared with orthoradial projections, the use of oblique projection images greatly improved the ability of observers to detect peri-implant bone defects on the buccal side. The results provide new evidence for the selection of radiographic images in the follow-up of implant treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39808239What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.