Reliability of linear and curvilinear measurements on conebeam computed tomography images for the evaluation of implant sites and jaw pathologies
Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clinica Integrada, ISSN: 1983-4632, Vol: 21, Page: 1-9
2021
- 2Citations
- 169Usage
- 9Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Objective: To evaluate the intra-examiner and inter-examiner reliability of linear and curvilinear measurements for the complete assessment of implant sites and jaw pathologies using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods: Fifty cone-beam computed tomographic images of patients were retrieved from the archives of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. CBCT images taken for implant planning and evaluation of intrabony jaw pathologies (benign cyst/tumor) were included. Two expert oral and maxillofacial radiologists analyzed the images independently and made the measurements. The images for implant planning were analyzed for width, the height of the edentulous site, and the qualitative analysis of bone in the region. Jaw pathologies were assessed for linear dimensions and curvilinear measurements. Results: The inter-observer measurement error for implant site analysis ranged from 0.12 to 0.42 mm with almost perfect agreement (ICC: 0.94 to 1). The inter-observer measurement error for jaw pathology was 0.09 to 0.25 mm (ICC: 0.98-1). Curvilinear measurements showed perfect agreement between the observers. The intraobserver reliability for the various parameters used for the assessment of the implant site and jaw pathologies indicated almost perfect agreement. Conclusion: Reliability between the radiologists is high for various measurements on CBCT images taken for implant planning and jaw pathologies.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85097973238&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2021.023; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1983-46322021000100327&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pboci/v21/1519-0501-pboci-21-e0125.pdf; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1983-46322021000100327&lng=en&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1983-46322021000100327&lng=en&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1983-46322021000100327; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1983-46322021000100327; https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2021.023; https://www.scielo.br/j/pboci/a/RXMnHSQzkhKwRFrTGkWGdXv/?lang=en
FapUNIFESP (SciELO)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know