Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 13, 2025
Experimental Model of Ligature-Induced Peri-Implantitis in Mice
Published on: May 17, 2024
Misfit detection in implant-supported prostheses of different compositions by periapical radiography and cone beam
Sergio Lins de-Azevedo-Vaz1, Caíque Araujo-Siqueira2, Vinícius Cavalcanti Carneiro2
1Professor, Department of Clinical Dentistry, Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES), Espírito Santo, Brazil.
Statement Of Problem:
Misfits at the implant-abutment joint (IAJ) can cause the biological and mechanical failure of implant therapy. Standard parallel periapical radiography (PERI) is the method of choice for assessing the fitting of implant-supported prostheses. Although current guidelines do not support the use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) solely for misfit detection, CBCT scans can also register misfits as imaging findings. Whether the material used for prostheses manufacturing influences misfit appearance in PERI and CBCT images is unknown.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of the type of prosthesis material on misfit detection at the IAJ by using PERI and CBCT.
Material And Methods:
Thirty-two implants with an external hexagon connection were placed in dried human mandibles. Implant-supported crowns were manufactured with different materials and allocated to 3 experimental groups: metal-ceramic (MC), titanium abutment veneered with acrylic resin (TIT), and zirconia abutment veneered with glass-ceramic (ZIR). All crowns were installed both with and without a simulated 200-μm-thick gap at the IAJ (n=64) and were assessed by PERI and CBCT scans. Four dentists evaluated the images for the presence or absence of misfit. Statistical analysis included the Kappa test and areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (Az values) comparisons (α=.05).
Results:
Kappa values indicated almost perfect intraevaluator and interevaluator reproducibility for PERI and ranged from fair to almost perfect for CBCT. For PERI, Az values were not significantly different among the MC (0.995), TIT (0.997), and ZIR groups (1.000) (P>.05). Regarding CBCT, the Az values found for TIT (0.941) and MC (0.890) were significantly higher than for ZIR (0.762) (P<.05). Az values for PERI were significantly higher than for CBCT (P<.05).
Conclusions:
The type of prosthesis material did not influence misfit detection at the IAJ with PERI; however, ZIR had lower diagnostic accuracy than TIT and MC implant-supported crowns with CBCT.
