• Implantology;
  • peri-implantitis;
  • dental radiography;
  • image processing


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. References

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance obtained from direct digital radiographic images (in their original form and after applying a grey-scale inversion) and conventional film in the detection of artificial periimplant cancellous bone lesions.

Methods: Four titanium implants were placed into the cancellous bone of a dry mandible and increasingly larger bone defects were created in their approximal sites. Radiographs were taken using conventional film and a digital charge-coupled device sensor. Twelve observers estimated three series of images (conventional, digital original, digital inverse) on a 5-point confidence scale. Data were evaluated statistically by analysis of variance and the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the three imaging modalities were calculated.

Results: Total mean observer confidence scores increased as the size of the defect also increased. No statistically significant differences were found among the three images for the absence of defect and the defect that corresponds to the smallest bur size. Significant differences were found for larger bur sizes between the conventional image and the two digital images and for the largest bur size between the digital inverse and the other two images. Specificity was high and sensitivity relatively low.

Conclusions: Peri-implant bone lesions must exceed a certain size to be confidently detected but the lesion absence is detected equally well with all three imaging modalities.

Abbreviations and acronyms:
Analysis of variance



charge-coupled device;


tuned-aperture computed tomography.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. References
  • 1
    Ludlow JB, Nason Jr RH, Hutchens Jr LH, Moriarty J. Radiographic evaluation of alveolar crest obscured by dental implants. Implant Dent 1995;4:1318.
  • 2
    Wyatt CCL, Bryant SR, Avivi-Arber L., Chaytor DV, Zarb GA. A computer-assisted measurement technique to assess bone proximal to oral implants on intraoral radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:225229.
  • 3
    Frederiksen NL. Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;80:540554.
  • 4
    Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Nummikoski PV, Buser D., Schenk RK, Cochran DL. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:475485.
  • 5
    Nair MK, Ludlow JB, Tyndall DA, Platin E., Denton G. Periodontitis detection efficacy of film and digital images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85:608612.
  • 6
    Borg E., Gröndahl K., Gröndahl HG. Marginal bone level buccal to mandibular molars in digital radiographs from charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems. An in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:306312.
  • 7
    Parsell DE, Gatewood RS, Watts JD, Streckfus C F. Sensitivity of various radiographic methods for detection of oral cancellous bone lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;86:498502.
  • 8
    Gröndahl K., Kullendorff B., Strid KG, Gröndahl HG, Henrikson CO. Detectability of artificial marginal bone lesions as a function of lesion depth. A comparison between subtraction radiography and conventional radiographic technique. J Clin Periodontol 1988;15:156162.
  • 9
    Gröndahl HG, Gröndahl K. Subtraction radiography for the diagnosis of periodontal bone lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1983;55:208213.
  • 10
    Chai-U-Dom O., Ludlow JB, Tyndall DA, Webber RL. Comparison of conventional and TACTR (Tuned Aperture Computed Tomography) digital subtraction radiography in detection of pericrestal bone-gain. J Periodontal Res 2002;37:147153.
  • 11
    Stassinakis A., Brägger U., Stojanovic M., Bürgin W., Lussi A., Lang N P. Accuracy in detecting bone lesions in vitro with conventional and subtracted direct digital imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995;24:232237.
  • 12
    Nicopoulou-Karayianni K., Brägger U., Lang NP. Subtraction radiography in oral implantology. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1997;17:221231.
  • 13
    Reddy MS, Mayfield-Donahoo TL, Jeffcoat MK. A semi-automated computer-assisted method for measuring bone loss adjacent to dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:2831.
  • 14
    van der Stelt PF, van der Linden LWJ, Geraets WGM, Alons CL. Digitized pattern recognition in the diagnosis of periodontal bone defects. J Clin Periodontol 1985;12:822827.
  • 15
    Ramesh A., Ludlow JB, Webber RL, Tyndall DA, Paquette D. Evaluation of tuned-aperture computed tomography in the detection of simulated periodontal defects. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:341349.
  • 16
    Webber RL, Horton RA, Underhill TE, Ludlow JB, Tyndall DA. Comparison of film, direct digital, and tuned-aperture computed tomography images to identify the location of crestal defects around endosseous titanium implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;81:480490.
  • 17
    Wolf B., von Bethlenfalvy E., Hassfeld S., Staehle HJ, Eickholz P. Reliability of assessing interproximal bone loss by digital radiography: intrabony defects. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28:869878.
  • 18
    Kullendorff B., Nilsson M. Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions. II. Effects on diagnostic accuracy after application of image processing. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82:585589.
  • 19
    Versteeg CH, Sanderink GCH, van Ginkel FC, van der Stelt P F. Effects of calibration and automatic greyscale adjustment on detectability of simulated bone lesions using a storage phosphor system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998;27:240244.
  • 20
    Dove SB, McDavid WD. A comparison of conventional intra-oral radiography and computer imaging techniques for the detection of proximal surface dental caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1992;21:127134.
  • 21
    Hausmann E. Radiographic and digital imaging in periodontal practice. J Periodontol 2000;71:497503.
  • 22
    Furkart AJ, Dove SB, McDavid WD, Nummikoski PV, Matteson S. Direct digital radiography for the detection of periodontal bone lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;74:652660.
  • 23
    Versteeg CH, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt P F Efficacy of digital intra-oral radiography in clinical dentistry. J Dent 1997;25:215224.
  • 24
    Abreu Jr M., Mol A., Ludlow JB. Performance of RVGui sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film for proximal caries detection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91:381385.
  • 25
    Møystad A., Svanaes DB, Larheim TA, Gröndahl HG. Effect of image magnification of digitized bitewing radiographs on approximal caries detection: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995;24:255259.