Purpose: Bone grafts can be challenging to assess on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations due to their discreet appearance and the potential introduction of metallic artifacts from implant screws. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of CBCT milliamperage (mA) on detecting bone graft dehiscence adjacent to titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty Ti and 20 Zr implants were installed in bovine rib blocks. Gaps of at least 2 mmwere created between the implant and the bone and filled with particulate autogenous bone grafts. In half of the blocks, the gap was completely filled, while in the other half, the grafting material was removed up to the thirdimplant thread. CBCT images were acquired at 4, 6.3, and 10 mA and evaluated by 5 observers to detect bone graftdehiscence. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity werecalculated. These values were then compared across various dental implant materials and mA levels using 2-wayanalysis of variance with a significance level of 5%. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in the diagnostic values for bone graft dehiscencebetween implant types (P>0.05) or mA settings (P>0.05). Conclusion Although a protocol with lower radiation exposure (that is, lower mA) could be employed, the use of CBCT for evaluating bone graft dehiscence adjacent to different types of dental implants should be approached with caution.

Purpose: Bone grafts can be challenging to assess on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations due to their discreet appearance and the potential introduction of metallic artifacts from implant screws. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of CBCT milliamperage (mA) on detecting bone graft dehiscence adjacent to titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty Ti and 20 Zr implants were installed in bovine rib blocks. Gaps of at least 2 mmwere created between the implant and the bone and filled with particulate autogenous bone grafts. In half of the blocks, the gap was completely filled, while in the other half, the grafting material was removed up to the thirdimplant thread. CBCT images were acquired at 4, 6.3, and 10 mA and evaluated by 5 observers to detect bone graftdehiscence. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity werecalculated. These values were then compared across various dental implant materials and mA levels using 2-wayanalysis of variance with a significance level of 5%. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in the diagnostic values for bone graft dehiscencebetween implant types (P>0.05) or mA settings (P>0.05). Conclusion Although a protocol with lower radiation exposure (that is, lower mA) could be employed, the use of CBCT for evaluating bone graft dehiscence adjacent to different types of dental implants should be approached with caution.

Purpose: Bone grafts can be challenging to assess on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations due to their discreet appearance and the potential introduction of metallic artifacts from implant screws. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of CBCT milliamperage (mA) on detecting bone graft dehiscence adjacent to titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty Ti and 20 Zr implants were installed in bovine rib blocks. Gaps of at least 2 mmwere created between the implant and the bone and filled with particulate autogenous bone grafts. In half of the blocks, the gap was completely filled, while in the other half, the grafting material was removed up to the thirdimplant thread. CBCT images were acquired at 4, 6.3, and 10 mA and evaluated by 5 observers to detect bone graftdehiscence. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity werecalculated. These values were then compared across various dental implant materials and mA levels using 2-wayanalysis of variance with a significance level of 5%. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in the diagnostic values for bone graft dehiscencebetween implant types (P>0.05) or mA settings (P>0.05). Conclusion Although a protocol with lower radiation exposure (that is, lower mA) could be employed, the use of CBCT for evaluating bone graft dehiscence adjacent to different types of dental implants should be approached with caution.