Table 2 Comparison of different implant identification studies ( (Michelinakis et al. 2006); (Sahiwal et al. 2002a; Sahiwal et al. 2002b; Sahiwal et al. 2002c); (Nuzzolese et al. 2008))
From: Current technology for identifying dental implants: a narrative review
| Â | G.Michelinakis et al. (IRS) (Michelinakis et al. 2006) | Sahiwal, I. G. et al. (macro surface details documentation) (Sahiwal et al. 2002c) | Sahiwal, I. G. et al. (threaded Imp documentation) (Sahiwal et al. 2002a) | Sahiwal, I. G. et al. (non-threaded Imp documentation) (Sahiwal et al. 2002b) | . Nuzzolese et al. -Forensic. (Nuzzolese et al. 2008) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location of the study | Manchester.UK | Texas. U.S | Texas U.S | Texas U.S | Italy |
Aim | Create a software for implant identification | Documentation of different implant macro design features | Documentation of threaded implant features from X-ray photos | Documentation of threaded implant features from X-ray photos | Identification of implant systems from X-Ray photo for a forensic geographic identification |
Number of implant company designs in the study | 231 | 44 | 16 | 28 | Implant companies in Italy |
X-Ray identification | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
X-Ray photo in horizontal rotation | N | N | Y Taken in 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° horizontal rotation | Y Taken in 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° horizontal rotation | Y at 0º, 30º, and 60 º horizontal rotation |
X-Ray photo in vertical inclination | N | N | Y Taken in –20°, -10°, 0°, + 10°, and + 20° vertical inclination | Y Taken in –20°, -10°, 0°, + 10°, and + 20° vertical inclination | Y -20º, -10º, 0º, + 10º, and + 20º vertical inclination |
Software | Y | N | N | N | Y |
worldwide | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
limitations | This is not a consistently updated method | There no software available making it more prone to human error. This is not a consistently updated method | There is no software available which makes it more prone to human error. This is not a consistently updated method | There is no software available which makes it more prone to human error. This is not a consistently updated method. A new more exact method is still required for a more accurate identification of implants | Data solely from Italy; lacking information worldwide |
| Â | A new more exact method is required for a more accurate identification of implants. Limited time period of collected data | A new more exact method is required for a more accurate identification of implants | A new more exact method is still required for a more accurate identification of implants | Â | Â |