Table 10 Evidence table

Mandelaris et al.2017 [14]

consensus statement

CBCT should be used as an adjunct to 2D dental radiology when, in the reasonable judgment of the clinician, the specific benefits to the patient as outlined above outweigh the risks.

Rios et al. 2017 [15]

evidence review

176 studies

Great heterogeneity still remains among the different available CBCT units, which is reflected in the wide range of effective CBCT doses estimated.

The presence of inherent imaging artifacts caused by titanium implants significantly decreases the visualization of the bone implant interface in CBCT.

It can cause significant interference when images are reviewed to assess implant placement and performance.

Yilmaz et al. 2017 [16]

survey

405 dentists

Given the serious nature of TG

damage, dentists undertaking implant surgery should acquire knowledge and skills in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of dental implant–related TG nerve injury and receive specific training on justification and interpretation of CBCTs.

Bruschi et al.2017 [17]

consecutive patient

137 dental implants

Within the first year from implant placement, a bone loss resulted at a mean value of −1.11 ± 0.44 mm. After almost 3 years from implant placement, a mean bone gain of + 0.89 ± 0.39 mm was reported.

Reference Standard,

Consecutive patient

Ter Gunne et al. 2016 [18]

RCT

40 patients

Mean radiographic marginal bone loss between baseline and the 3-year follow-up was 0.35 ± 0.63 mm for immediately loaded implants and 0.31 ± 0.96 mm for early loaded implants (P = .26).

Klokkevold. 2015 [19]

review

52 studies

Conventional imaging is the first choice standard for assessment and monitoring of bone levels around implants following placement and osseointegration.

The use of CBCT imaging can help verify the implant position and facilitate the clinician’s decision making to remove or maintain an implant in a patient with postsurgical paresthesia.