{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03282704556589907, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005879470847623714, 'mean_word_length': 5.565916398713826, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Diagnostic performance of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri‐implant bone loss: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the assessment of peri-implant bone loss and analyze its influencing factors.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Clinical and preclinical studies reporting diagnostic outcomes of CBCT imaging of peri-implant bone loss compared to direct reference measurements were sought by searching five electronic databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus, and OpenGrey. QUADAS-2 criteria were adapted for quality analysis of the included studies. A qualitative synthesis was performed. Two meta-analysis models (random-effects and mixed-effects) summarized the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve observations reported in the selected studies. The mixed-effects meta-analysis model evaluated three possible influencing factors, "defect type," "defect size," and "study effect."


RESULTS
The initial search yielded 3,716 titles, from which 18 studies (13 in vitro and 5 animal) were included. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT was fair to excellent in detecting in vitro circumferential-intrabony and fenestration defects, but moderate to low for peri-implant dehiscences, and tended to be higher for larger defect sizes. Both, over- and underestimation of linear measurements were reported for the animal models. The meta-analyses included 37 AUC observations from eight studies. The random-effects model showed significant heterogeneity. The mixed-effects model exhibited also significant but lower heterogeneity, and "defect type" and "study effect" significantly influenced the variability of AUC observations.


CONCLUSION
In vitro, CBCT performs well in detecting peri-implant circumferential-intrabony or fenestration defects but less in depicting dehiscences. Influencing factors due to other site-related and technical parameters on the diagnostic outcome need to be addressed further in the future studies.