Abstract

Background/Objectives: Metal artifacts from dental implants degrade CBCT image quality and may impair detection of peri-implant bone defects. Zirconia implants produce stronger artifacts than titanium due to its higher atomic number. This study evaluated the impact of a native MAR algorithm (SMARF) on CBCT detection of buccal fenestration and dehiscence of varying sizes adjacent to zirconia versus titanium implants. Methods: In this ex vivo pilot study, two 4 mm × 12 mm implants (one titanium and one zirconia) were implanted in a dry human mandible. Artificial fenestration and dehiscence defects were created at the buccal surface of right and left premolar regions, in three sizes (small 2 mm × 2 mm× 1 mm; medium 2 mm × 4 mm× 1 mm; large 2 mm × 6 mm× 1 mm). Scans were acquired with a Papaya 3D (Genoray) CBCT using a single-tooth FOV (4 cm× 4 cm × 5 cm), 83 kVp, 10 mA, 0.1 mm voxel; each condition was imaged with MAR on and off (six repeats each). Two trained observers scored defect presence on a five-point Likert scale. Sensitivity, specificity, inter- and intraobserver agreement (Cohen’s kappa), and comparisons across conditions were calculated. Results: Interobserver κ = 0.65 (substantial); intraobserver κ = 0.87–1.00 (excellent). For titanium implants, sensitivity and specificity were 100% across all defect types, sizes, and MAR settings. For zirconia implants, fenestration sensitivity with MAR off increased with size (small 50%, medium 75%, large 100%); MAR on raised sensitivity to 100% for all sizes, with a significant improvement for small fenestrations (p = 0.005). Dehiscence sensitivity for zirconia was 100% across sizes and MAR conditions. Specificity for zirconia defects was 83.3% with MAR off and decreased to 66.6% with MAR on (p = 0.07). Conclusions: With the Papaya 3D system used in this pilot study, MAR was unnecessary for defect detection adjacent to titanium implants but affected performance for zirconia implants: MAR increased sensitivity for small fenestrations while reducing specificity (although not statistically significant). Clinicians should weigh the sensitivity–specificity trade off when applying MAR around zirconia implants.

IPC Classification

Keywords