Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Spiral scanning imaging and quantitative calculation of the 3-dimensional screw-shaped bone-implant interface on micro-computed tomography

  • Received : 2018.06.01
  • Accepted : 2018.08.01
  • Published : 2018.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) is difficult to measure on micro-computed tomography (CT) because of artifacts that hinder accurate differentiation of the bone and implant. This study presents an advanced algorithm for measuring BIC in micro-CT acquisitions using a spiral scanning technique, with improved differentiation of bone and implant materials. Methods: Five sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched implants were used. Three implants were subjected to surface analysis, and 2 were inserted into a New Zealand white rabbit, with each tibia receiving 1 implant. The rabbit was sacrificed after 28 days. The en bloc specimens were subjected to spiral (SkyScan 1275, Bruker) and round (SkyScan 1172, SkyScan 1275) micro-CT scanning to evaluate differences in the images resulting from the different scanning techniques. The partial volume effect (PVE) was optimized as much as possible. BIC was measured with both round and spiral scanning on the SkyScan 1275, and the results were compared. Results: Compared with the round micro-CT scanning, the spiral scanning showed much clearer images. In addition, the PVE was optimized, which allowed accurate BIC measurements to be made. Round scanning on the SkyScan 1275 resulted in higher BIC measurements than spiral scanning on the same machine; however, the higher measurements on round scanning were confirmed to be false, and were found to be the result of artifacts in the void, rather than bone. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that spiral scanning can reduce metal artifacts, thereby allowing clear differentiation of bone and implant. Moreover, the PVE, which is a factor that inevitably hinders accurate BIC measurements, was optimized through an advanced algorithm.

Keywords

References

  1. Bernhardt R, Kuhlisch E, Schulz MC, Eckelt U, Stadlinger B. Comparison of bone-implant contact and bone-implant volume between 2D-histological sections and 3D-$SR{\mu}CT$ slices. Eur Cell Mater 2012;23:237-47. https://doi.org/10.22203/eCM.v023a18
  2. Bissinger O, Probst FA, Wolff KD, Jeschke A, Weitz J, Deppe H, et al. Comparative 3D micro-CT and 2D histomorphometry analysis of dental implant osseointegration in the maxilla of minipigs. J Clin Periodontol 2017;44:418-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12693
  3. Jimbo R, Coelho PG, Vandeweghe S, Schwartz-Filho HO, Hayashi M, Ono D, et al. Histological and three-dimensional evaluation of osseointegration to nanostructured calcium phosphate-coated implants. Acta Biomater 2011;7:4229-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.07.017
  4. Vandeweghe S, Coelho PG, Vanhove C, Wennerberg A, Jimbo R. Utilizing micro-computed tomography to evaluate bone structure surrounding dental implants: a comparison with histomorphometry. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2013;101:1259-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.32938
  5. Becker K, Stauber M, Schwarz F, Beissbarth T. Automated 3D-2D registration of X-ray microcomputed tomography with histological sections for dental implants in bone using chamfer matching and simulated annealing. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2015;44:62-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2015.04.005
  6. Bernhardt R, Scharnweber D, Muller B, Thurner P, Schliephake H, Wyss P, et al. Comparison of microfocus- and synchrotron X-ray tomography for the analysis of osteointegration around Ti6Al4V implants. Eur Cell Mater 2004;7:42-51. https://doi.org/10.22203/eCM.v007a05
  7. Park YS, Yi KY, Lee IS, Jung YC. Correlation between microtomography and histomorphometry for assessment of implant osseointegration. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:156-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01083.x
  8. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 2004;24:1679-91. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.246045065
  9. Li JY, Pow EH, Zheng LW, Ma L, Kwong DL, Cheung LK. Quantitative analysis of titanium-induced artifacts and correlated factors during micro-CT scanning. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:506-10.
  10. Narra N, Antalainen AK, Zipprich H, Sandor GK, Wolff J. Microcomputed tomography-based assessment of retrieved dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:308-14. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3756
  11. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012;20:256-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2012.02.010
  12. Salmon P. Micro-CT image analysis techniques for orthopedic applications: metal implant-to-bone contact surface and porosity of biomaterials. In: Leung KS, Qin L, Cheung WH, editors. A practical manual for musculoskeletal research. Singapore: World Scientific; 2008. p.583-603.
  13. Rebaudi A, Koller B, Laib A, Trisi P. Microcomputed tomographic analysis of the peri-implant bone. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004;24:316-25.

Cited by

  1. Inaccuracy of buccal bone thickness estimation on cone‐beam CT due to implant blooming: An ex‐vivo study vol.46, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13183
  2. Ceramic Materials and Technologies Applied to Digital Works in Implant-Supported Restorative Dentistry vol.13, pp.8, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13081964
  3. How image-processing parameters can influence the assessment of dental materials using micro-CT vol.50, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2020.50.2.161
  4. Tibolone, alendronate, and simvastatin enhance implant osseointegration in a preclinical in vivo model vol.31, pp.7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13602
  5. Biomimetic Composite Coatings for Activation of Titanium Implant Surfaces: Methodological Approach and In Vivo Enhanced Osseointegration vol.12, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/mi12111352
  6. Correlation between two-dimensional micro-CT and histomorphometry for assessment of the implant osseointegration in rabbit tibia model vol.25, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-021-00213-x
  7. How do imaging protocols affect the assessment of root-end fillings? vol.47, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2022.47.e2