Acceso abierto

Evaluation of the visibility of peri-implant bone defects using ultrasonography with two types of probes

Kaan Orhan
Kaan Orhan
, 
Gozde Serindere
Gozde Serindere
, 
Ceren Aktuna Belgin
Ceren Aktuna Belgin
 y 
Mehmet Hakan Kurt
Mehmet Hakan Kurt
   | 09 sept 2021
Journal of Ultrasonography's Cover Image
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Cite
Article Category: research-article
Publicado en línea: 09 sept 2021
Páginas: 206 - 212
Recibido: 10 ene 2021
Aceptado: 24 feb 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15557/jou.2021.0033
Palabras clave
© 2021 Polish Ultrasound Society. Published by Medical Communications Sp. z o.o.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Fig. 1.

A. Image using both zirconium and titanium implants with fenestrations, B. Fenestration defects around titanium implants, C. Preparation of scanning site; note that the flap was again placed on the scanned region, D. Intra-oral scan, E. Extra-oral scanning of the dental implant sites
A. Image using both zirconium and titanium implants with fenestrations, B. Fenestration defects around titanium implants, C. Preparation of scanning site; note that the flap was again placed on the scanned region, D. Intra-oral scan, E. Extra-oral scanning of the dental implant sites

Fig. 2.

A. US image showing fenestration defects around titanium implants (arrows), B. US showing a fenestration defect around zirconium implant (arrow) scanned with a 13 MHz intra-operative probe that was used intraorally
A. US image showing fenestration defects around titanium implants (arrows), B. US showing a fenestration defect around zirconium implant (arrow) scanned with a 13 MHz intra-operative probe that was used intraorally

Fig. 3.

A. US image showing a fenestration defect around titanium implant (arrowhead), while the fenestration defects were non-visible around A. titanium and B. zirconium implant scanned with a 5–13.3 MHz linear probe that was used extraorally (arrows)
A. US image showing a fenestration defect around titanium implant (arrowhead), while the fenestration defects were non-visible around A. titanium and B. zirconium implant scanned with a 5–13.3 MHz linear probe that was used extraorally (arrows)

Fig. 4.

A. US image showing fenestrations around titanium (left arrow) and zirconium implant (right arrow) scanned with a 14 MHz intra-operative probe, B. Same implants scanned with a 4–9 MHz linear probe that was used extraorally without any fenestration defect visible
A. US image showing fenestrations around titanium (left arrow) and zirconium implant (right arrow) scanned with a 14 MHz intra-operative probe, B. Same implants scanned with a 4–9 MHz linear probe that was used extraorally without any fenestration defect visible

Fig. 5.

A. US image showing fenestrations around titanium implants scanned with a 14 MHz intra-operative probe, B. Same implants scanned with a 4–9 MHz linear probe that was used extraorally with the defect
A. US image showing fenestrations around titanium implants scanned with a 14 MHz intra-operative probe, B. Same implants scanned with a 4–9 MHz linear probe that was used extraorally with the defect

Interobserver agreement between observers. p value less than 0.05 considered as statically significant (95% CI)

ICC p
1st hockey stick probe intraorally 0.784 (0.349-0.930) 0.002
2nd hockey stick probe intraorally 0.909 (0.721-0.971) 0.001
1st linear probe extraorally 0.762 (0.300-0.922) 0.006
2nd linear probe extraorally 0.914 (0.728-0.972) 0.001

Intraobserver agreement for Observer 1 and Observer 2. p value less than 0.05 considered as statically significant (95% CI)

Observer 1 Observer 2
ICC p ICC p
1st hockey stick probe intraorally 0.878(0.632-0.960) 0.0001 0.952(0.817-0.986) 0.001
2nd hockey stick probe intraorally 0.966(0.885-0.989) 0.0001 0.921(0.752-0.975) 0.001
1st linear probe extraorally 0.696(0.095-0.901) 0.019 0.727(0.120-0.913) 0.016
2nd linear probe extraorally 0.849(0.524-0.952) 0.001 0.875(0.609-0.960) 0.001

Comparison of observers with the gold standard. p value less than 0.05 considered as statically significant

Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV κ p
1st hockey stick probe intraorally Observer 1-Gold Standard 80% 100% 100% 90% 0.837 0.001
2nd hockey stick probe intraorally Observer 1-Gold Standard 80% 89% 80% 89%hz 0.689 0.011
1st linear probe extraorally Observer 1-Gold Standard 100% 33% 46% 100% 0.263 0.145
2nd linear probe extraorally Observer 1-Gold Standard 100% 33% 46% 100% 0.263 0.145
1st hockey stick probe intraorally Observer 2-Gold Standard 100% 89% 83% 100% 0.851 0.001
2nd hockey stick probe intraorally Observer 2-Gold Standard 100% 78% 71% 100% 0.714 0.005
1st linear probe extraorally Observer 2-Gold Standard 60% 22% 30% 50% –0.145 0.481
2nd linear probe extraorally Observer 2-Gold Standard 80% 11% 33% 50% –0.068 0.649
eISSN:
2451-070X
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
4 veces al año
Temas de la revista:
Medicine, Basic Medical Science, other
RSS Feed de revista