% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Ruetters:303446,
author = {M. Ruetters and C. Mertens and H. Gehrig and S. Sen and
T.-S. Kim and H.-P. Schlemmer$^*$ and S. Schoenberg and M.
Froelich and M. Kachelrieß$^*$ and S. Sawall$^*$},
title = {{D}ental photon-counting computed tomography for the
assessment of {P}eri-{I}mplant structures.},
journal = {International journal of implant dentistry},
volume = {11},
number = {1},
issn = {2198-4034},
address = {Heidelberg},
publisher = {Springer},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-01659},
pages = {51},
year = {2025},
note = {#LA:E025#},
abstract = {To assess the diagnostic performance of photon-counting
computed tomography (PCCT) in the imaging of peri-implant
bone structures and to compare it quantitatively and
qualitatively to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).Thirty
titanium implants were placed in ten porcine mandibles. CBCT
and PCCT scans were acquired and compared quantitatively
regarding image noise and CT-values. Additionally bone
thickness was compared to a gold standard at 60 standardized
locations by one calibrated investigator in both modalities.
Measurement accuracy was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis.
Two experienced raters performed qualitative assessments of
anatomic structures around the implant using a 5-point
visibility scale. These included the bone-implant interface
around the implant surface, the bone at the implant shoulder
as well as the oral and vestibular bone lamella. Inter-rater
agreement was assessed using ICC.Across all evaluated
implants, CT-values in a soft-tissue region of interest
adjacent to the implant increased by 11.7 ± $3.9\%$ for
CBCT acquisitions, whereas they decreased by 5.3 ± $1.3\%$
for PCCT acquisitions. Similarly, image noise in the
respective ROIs is increased by a factor of 63 ± $13\%$ in
case of CBCT acquisitions and only by 23 ± $5\%$ in case of
PCCT acquisitions. Bone thickness deviations were smaller
for PCCT (mean ± SD: 0.06 ± 0.08 mm) than for CBCT (0.39
± 0.34 mm). Qualitative assessments consistently favored
PCCT (p < 0.05) with excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC
> 0.75 ) in almost all categories.PCCT enables superior
visualization of peri-implant bone structures with fewer
artifacts and improved diagnostic accuracy.},
keywords = {Animals / Swine / Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: methods /
Dental Implants / Mandible: diagnostic imaging / Mandible:
surgery / Tomography, X-Ray Computed: methods / Photons / 3D
dental imaging (Other) / CBCT (Other) / Image quality
(Other) / Implant diagnostics (Other) / Metal artifacts
(Other) / Peri-implant bone (Other) / Photon-counting CT
(Other) / Dental Implants (NLM Chemicals)},
cin = {E010 / E025},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E025-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:40782315},
doi = {10.1186/s40729-025-00640-8},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/303446},
}