Influence of the Milliamperage and Artifact Reduction Tool on the CBCT-Based Diagnosis of Buccal and Lingual Peri-implant Dehiscences: Comparison Between Two Types of Implants

To evaluate the influence of the milliamperage and artifact reduction (AR) tool on the diagnosis of buccal and lingual peri-implant dehiscences related to titanium-zirconia (Ti-Zr) and zirconia (Zr) implants using CBCT images.Ti-Zr and Zr implants were alternately inserted in 20 sites in the posterior region of three human mandibles that presented intact cortical (control) bones or simulated buccal and/or lingual peri-implant dehiscences. CBCT images were acquired with an OP300 Maxio unit, varied milliamperage (5 and 8 mA), and the use of AR tool. Three oral radiologists assessed the presence of dehiscences using a 5-point scale. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (Az), sensitivity, and specificity of each group (control and dehiscence) were obtained and compared using multiway ANOVA (α = .05).The milliamperage and the AR tool did not influence the diagnosis of dehiscences, and there were no differences between the buccal and lingual cortices (P > .05). However, Zr implants showed a higher sensitivity (0.67 to 0.89) and lower specificity (0.26 to 0.44) than Ti-Zr implants (0.19 to 0.44 and 0.93 to 1.00, respectively; P < .05). Az values did not differ between the implant types (P > .05).Dehiscences were more detectable when related to Zr implants, while the absence of dehiscences was more correctly visualized adjacent to Ti-Zr implants. The use of varied milliamperages and the AR tool did not affect the diagnosis of peri-implant dehiscences, regardless of the involved cortical (buccal or lingual) bones.