| Author, year | Measurements | Findings | Conclusion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Points | Examiner | Repeteability | |||
| Bohner et al., 2017 | Dental implant to bone surface at apical and 5mm above | 1 | 3 | No difference between CBCT and physical measurements | CBCT is accurate |
| Bohner et al., 2019 | Dental implant to bone surface at apical and 5mm above | 1 | 3 | No difference between CBCT and US to the control group | Trueness of US was similar to the one of CBCT |
| Chan et al., 2018 | Outsurface of bone crest and implant surface 1mm from the bone crest | 1 | 1 | The mean absolute difference among groups ranged from 0.033 to 0.24 mm. |
Ultrasound can accurately measure bone dimensions |
| Degen et al., 2016 | Distance between dental implant and bone surface | 1 | 1 | Median deviation was higher for ultrasound (US) (0.23mm) compared to CBCT measurements (0.19mm) | US showed a high potential for bone evaluation |
| Gonzáles-Martín et al., 2015 | 1mm apical to the bone crest | 2 | 1 | CBCT underestimated buccal bone | Devices presented low accuracy to measure bone |
| Liedke et al., 2018 | Distance between bone and implant surface from occlusal view | 3 | 1 | Low resolution jeopardize bone detection | CBCT overestimated bone thickness |
| Marotti et al., 2019 | Distance between implant and bone surface along the long axis of the implant | 2 | 1 | US and CBCT showed similar measurement values to optical scanner | US presented a higher accuracy in comparison to CBCT |
| Rásko et al., 2016 | Measurements were made at each thickness level | 1 | 1 | Deviation increased with a reduced bone thickness | CBCT was not accurate, especially for thin bone |
| Razavi et al., 2010 | Distance between dental implant and bone surface at implant threads 3, 6 and 9mm from the top of the implant | 10 | 2 | Bone thickness calculation showed a mean deviation of 0.14±0.15mm for Accuitomo and 0.46±0.24mm for I-CAT. For bone level, the mean deviation was 0.76±0.57mm to Accuitomo and 2.10±1.58mm to I-CAT | i-CAT did not produce sufficient resolution for the thin bone |
| Ritter et al., 2014 | From dental implant middle to bone surface, 4mm above apical of implant. | 2 | 2 | Mean deviation ranged from 0.06 to 2.61mm to CBCT and 0.12 to 0.43 to IR | CBCT provided usable information about bone dimension |
| Sheridan et al., 2018 | At the implant platform and apex |
- | 1 | No statistical difference was found in images with and without implants | Dental implants to not hamper the measurements of bone thickness by CBCT |
| Shiratori et al., 2012 | Dental implant to bone surface at apical and 5mm above | 1 | 3 | Mean difference for CBCT was 0.04±0.01mm for bone thickness and 0.13±0.86mm for bone level | CBCT is accurate |
| Vanderstuyft et al., 2019 | 2,4, and 6mm to the implant shoulder | 1 | 1 | Bone thickness was underestimated by 0.3mm | CBCT underestimated bone thickness |