Comparison of imaging methods used for dental implant osseous integration assessment
Two different imaging techniques used to determine bone tissue response to dental implants were compared. Dental implants were implanted into the maxillae of 18 pigs, which were sacrificed after 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Implants with surrounding bone tissue were retrieved for methyl methacrylate histology...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine 2013-09, Vol.24 (9), p.2195-2200 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2200 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 2195 |
| container_title | Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine |
| container_volume | 24 |
| creator | Sprecher, C. M. Gahlert, M. Röhling, S. Kniha, H. Gueorguiev, B. Milz, S. |
| description | Two different imaging techniques used to determine bone tissue response to dental implants were compared. Dental implants were implanted into the maxillae of 18 pigs, which were sacrificed after 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Implants with surrounding bone tissue were retrieved for methyl methacrylate histology and contact radiography. On identical sections peri-implant bone density and bone implant contact (BIC) ratio were assessed with two different imaging methods. Evaluation of Giemsa eosin stained and contact radiographed sections showed direct osseous integration for all implants and both methods showed a strong correlation with correlation coefficient r = 0.930 (
P
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10856-013-4978-2 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1434022257</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3047969921</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-4270d4e4e2409e312d994c8fbb69d42a761289767fb8df84e0d4270244f6d2203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9r3DAQxUVoSDbbfoBegqEUcnGiv5Z0DEuTFhZ6Sc5Ca0lbB9vaaOxDv31m2W0TCqEnIc3vzYzeI-Qzo9eMUn0DjBrV1JSJWlptan5CFkxpvBlhPpAFtUrXUgl6Ti4Aniil0ip1Rs65QMBouyAPqzzsfOkgj1VOVTf4bTduqyFOv3KAaoYYqpRLFeI4-R7ru96PU5UBYp6h6sYpboufOpR7fAMYEPxITpPvIX46nkvyePftYfW9Xv-8_7G6XdetFGqqJdc0yCgjl9RGwXiwVrYmbTaNDZJ73TBurG502piQjIxIo4RLmZrAORVLcnXouyv5eY4wuaGDNva44n47x6SQlHOOlvwf5Y1CU9GtJfnyD_qU5zLiR_aUUlorYZFiB6otaEaJye0Kuld-O0bdPh13SMdhOm6fjuOouTx2njdDDH8Vf-JA4OsR8ND6PhU_th28clpTzFcixw8cYGncxvJmxXenvwATc6XD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1425577539</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of imaging methods used for dental implant osseous integration assessment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Sprecher, C. M. ; Gahlert, M. ; Röhling, S. ; Kniha, H. ; Gueorguiev, B. ; Milz, S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sprecher, C. M. ; Gahlert, M. ; Röhling, S. ; Kniha, H. ; Gueorguiev, B. ; Milz, S.</creatorcontrib><description>Two different imaging techniques used to determine bone tissue response to dental implants were compared. Dental implants were implanted into the maxillae of 18 pigs, which were sacrificed after 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Implants with surrounding bone tissue were retrieved for methyl methacrylate histology and contact radiography. On identical sections peri-implant bone density and bone implant contact (BIC) ratio were assessed with two different imaging methods. Evaluation of Giemsa eosin stained and contact radiographed sections showed direct osseous integration for all implants and both methods showed a strong correlation with correlation coefficient r = 0.930 (
P
< 0.0001) for peri-implant bone density and r = 0.817 (
P
< 0.0001) for bone implant contact ratio. While the two imaging methods showed moderate differences for peri-implant bone density there were significant differences between the BIC values determined. In general, contact radiography tends to underestimate BIC for approximately 4.5 % (
P
= 0.00003).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0957-4530</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-4838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10856-013-4978-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23838879</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston: Springer US</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomaterials ; Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering ; Biomedical materials ; Ceramics ; Chemistry and Materials Science ; Comparative studies ; Composites ; Dental care ; Dental Implants ; Female ; Glass ; Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics ; Materials Science ; Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics ; Medical imaging ; Medical sciences ; Natural Materials ; Osseointegration ; Polymer Sciences ; Regenerative Medicine/Tissue Engineering ; Surfaces and Interfaces ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Swine ; Swine, Miniature ; Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments ; Thin Films ; Transplants & implants</subject><ispartof>Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2013-09, Vol.24 (9), p.2195-2200</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-4270d4e4e2409e312d994c8fbb69d42a761289767fb8df84e0d4270244f6d2203</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-4270d4e4e2409e312d994c8fbb69d42a761289767fb8df84e0d4270244f6d2203</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10856-013-4978-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10856-013-4978-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27701574$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23838879$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sprecher, C. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gahlert, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Röhling, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kniha, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gueorguiev, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milz, S.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of imaging methods used for dental implant osseous integration assessment</title><title>Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine</title><addtitle>J Mater Sci: Mater Med</addtitle><addtitle>J Mater Sci Mater Med</addtitle><description>Two different imaging techniques used to determine bone tissue response to dental implants were compared. Dental implants were implanted into the maxillae of 18 pigs, which were sacrificed after 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Implants with surrounding bone tissue were retrieved for methyl methacrylate histology and contact radiography. On identical sections peri-implant bone density and bone implant contact (BIC) ratio were assessed with two different imaging methods. Evaluation of Giemsa eosin stained and contact radiographed sections showed direct osseous integration for all implants and both methods showed a strong correlation with correlation coefficient r = 0.930 (
P
< 0.0001) for peri-implant bone density and r = 0.817 (
P
< 0.0001) for bone implant contact ratio. While the two imaging methods showed moderate differences for peri-implant bone density there were significant differences between the BIC values determined. In general, contact radiography tends to underestimate BIC for approximately 4.5 % (
P
= 0.00003).</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomaterials</subject><subject>Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering</subject><subject>Biomedical materials</subject><subject>Ceramics</subject><subject>Chemistry and Materials Science</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Composites</subject><subject>Dental care</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Glass</subject><subject>Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</subject><subject>Materials Science</subject><subject>Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Natural Materials</subject><subject>Osseointegration</subject><subject>Polymer Sciences</subject><subject>Regenerative Medicine/Tissue Engineering</subject><subject>Surfaces and Interfaces</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Swine, Miniature</subject><subject>Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments</subject><subject>Thin Films</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><issn>0957-4530</issn><issn>1573-4838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU9r3DAQxUVoSDbbfoBegqEUcnGiv5Z0DEuTFhZ6Sc5Ca0lbB9vaaOxDv31m2W0TCqEnIc3vzYzeI-Qzo9eMUn0DjBrV1JSJWlptan5CFkxpvBlhPpAFtUrXUgl6Ti4Aniil0ip1Rs65QMBouyAPqzzsfOkgj1VOVTf4bTduqyFOv3KAaoYYqpRLFeI4-R7ru96PU5UBYp6h6sYpboufOpR7fAMYEPxITpPvIX46nkvyePftYfW9Xv-8_7G6XdetFGqqJdc0yCgjl9RGwXiwVrYmbTaNDZJ73TBurG502piQjIxIo4RLmZrAORVLcnXouyv5eY4wuaGDNva44n47x6SQlHOOlvwf5Y1CU9GtJfnyD_qU5zLiR_aUUlorYZFiB6otaEaJye0Kuld-O0bdPh13SMdhOm6fjuOouTx2njdDDH8Vf-JA4OsR8ND6PhU_th28clpTzFcixw8cYGncxvJmxXenvwATc6XD</recordid><startdate>20130901</startdate><enddate>20130901</enddate><creator>Sprecher, C. M.</creator><creator>Gahlert, M.</creator><creator>Röhling, S.</creator><creator>Kniha, H.</creator><creator>Gueorguiev, B.</creator><creator>Milz, S.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0W</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QP</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130901</creationdate><title>Comparison of imaging methods used for dental implant osseous integration assessment</title><author>Sprecher, C. M. ; Gahlert, M. ; Röhling, S. ; Kniha, H. ; Gueorguiev, B. ; Milz, S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-4270d4e4e2409e312d994c8fbb69d42a761289767fb8df84e0d4270244f6d2203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomaterials</topic><topic>Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering</topic><topic>Biomedical materials</topic><topic>Ceramics</topic><topic>Chemistry and Materials Science</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Composites</topic><topic>Dental care</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Glass</topic><topic>Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</topic><topic>Materials Science</topic><topic>Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Natural Materials</topic><topic>Osseointegration</topic><topic>Polymer Sciences</topic><topic>Regenerative Medicine/Tissue Engineering</topic><topic>Surfaces and Interfaces</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Swine, Miniature</topic><topic>Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments</topic><topic>Thin Films</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sprecher, C. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gahlert, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Röhling, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kniha, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gueorguiev, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milz, S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>DELNET Engineering & Technology Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sprecher, C. M.</au><au>Gahlert, M.</au><au>Röhling, S.</au><au>Kniha, H.</au><au>Gueorguiev, B.</au><au>Milz, S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of imaging methods used for dental implant osseous integration assessment</atitle><jtitle>Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine</jtitle><stitle>J Mater Sci: Mater Med</stitle><addtitle>J Mater Sci Mater Med</addtitle><date>2013-09-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2195</spage><epage>2200</epage><pages>2195-2200</pages><issn>0957-4530</issn><eissn>1573-4838</eissn><abstract>Two different imaging techniques used to determine bone tissue response to dental implants were compared. Dental implants were implanted into the maxillae of 18 pigs, which were sacrificed after 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Implants with surrounding bone tissue were retrieved for methyl methacrylate histology and contact radiography. On identical sections peri-implant bone density and bone implant contact (BIC) ratio were assessed with two different imaging methods. Evaluation of Giemsa eosin stained and contact radiographed sections showed direct osseous integration for all implants and both methods showed a strong correlation with correlation coefficient r = 0.930 (
P
< 0.0001) for peri-implant bone density and r = 0.817 (
P
< 0.0001) for bone implant contact ratio. While the two imaging methods showed moderate differences for peri-implant bone density there were significant differences between the BIC values determined. In general, contact radiography tends to underestimate BIC for approximately 4.5 % (
P
= 0.00003).</abstract><cop>Boston</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>23838879</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10856-013-4978-2</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0957-4530 |
| ispartof | Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2013-09, Vol.24 (9), p.2195-2200 |
| issn | 0957-4530 1573-4838 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1434022257 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Animals Biological and medical sciences Biomaterials Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering Biomedical materials Ceramics Chemistry and Materials Science Comparative studies Composites Dental care Dental Implants Female Glass Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics Materials Science Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics Medical imaging Medical sciences Natural Materials Osseointegration Polymer Sciences Regenerative Medicine/Tissue Engineering Surfaces and Interfaces Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Swine Swine, Miniature Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments Thin Films Transplants & implants |
| title | Comparison of imaging methods used for dental implant osseous integration assessment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T06%3A47%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20imaging%20methods%20used%20for%20dental%20implant%20osseous%20integration%20assessment&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20materials%20science.%20Materials%20in%20medicine&rft.au=Sprecher,%20C.%20M.&rft.date=2013-09-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2195&rft.epage=2200&rft.pages=2195-2200&rft.issn=0957-4530&rft.eissn=1573-4838&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10856-013-4978-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3047969921%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1425577539&rft_id=info:pmid/23838879&rfr_iscdi=true |