Background: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of different non-invasive methods for the assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness.
Methods: Subjects with two adjacent dental implants in the central maxillary region were included in this study. Three different methods to assess facial mucosal thickness (FMT) were compared: digital file superimposition using Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) and stereolithography (STL) files of the arch of interest (DICOM-STL), DICOM files alone, and non-ionizing ultrasound (US). Inter-rater reliability agreements between different assessment methods were analyzed using inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs).
Results: A total of 50 subjects with 100 bone-level implants constituted the study population. Assessment of FMT using STL and DICOM files demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability agreement. Mean ICC values of 0.97 and 0.95 were observed in the DICOM-STL and DICOM groups, respectively. Comparison between the DICOM-STL and US revealed good agreement, with an ICC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.88) and a mean difference of -0.13 ± 0.50 mm (-1.13 to 0.86). Comparison between DICOM files alone versus US showed good agreement, with an ICC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.89) and a mean difference of -0.23 ± 0.46 mm (-1.12 to 0.67). Comparison between DICOM-STL and DICOM files revealed excellent agreement, with an ICC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.96) and a mean difference of 0.1 ± 0.29 mm (LOA -0.47 to 0.46).
Conclusions: Quantification of peri-implant mucosal thickness via analysis of DICOM-STL files, DICOM files, or US assessment are comparably reliable and reproducible methods.
Keywords: 3D imaging; cone beam computed tomography; dental digital radiography; phenotype; ultrasound.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Periodontology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Periodontology.