Volume 27, Issue 3 (Avicenna Journal of Clinical Medicine-Autumn 2020)
Avicenna J Clin Med 2020, 27(3): 164-170 |
Back to browse issues page
1- , eskandarlo@umsha.ac.ir
Abstract: (2445 Views)
Background and Objective: Dental implants are a reliable tool for the replacement of missing teeth, and the use of advanced imaging techniques for the examination of the location of implants is on the rise these days. The present study aimed to assess the frequency of different types of bone at the implant site in different age groups in Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images.
Materials and Methods: A number of 320 CBCT images (ProMax®) which were obtained for implant replacement were evaluated in this descriptive study. Patients were assigned to 10 groups according to age (5-year intervals) from 20-70 years old. The bone type was determined based on Zarb and Lekholm classifications. In order to determine the bone type, cross-sectional images with 1mm thickness were prepared in the most suitable place for implant placement, and the resulting images were evaluated by two observers.
Materials and Methods: A number of 320 CBCT images (ProMax®) which were obtained for implant replacement were evaluated in this descriptive study. Patients were assigned to 10 groups according to age (5-year intervals) from 20-70 years old. The bone type was determined based on Zarb and Lekholm classifications. In order to determine the bone type, cross-sectional images with 1mm thickness were prepared in the most suitable place for implant placement, and the resulting images were evaluated by two observers.
Results: Out of 1042 implant sites, 461 581 sites were in maxilla and mandible, respectively. According to Kappa statistical analysis, there was a significant inter-observers statistical correlation (82%). the most commonly observed bone types were D3, D2, D4, and D1, respectively. Bone type D3 and D1 were the most and least prevalent types in men, whereas in women, the most and least prevalent types were D3 and D1, respectively. The prevalence of D3 and D4 bone type increases with age. Moreover, D1 and D3 were the least and most prevalent bone types in younger ages, respectively.
Conclusion: As evidenced by the obtained results, CBCT is a reliable tool for identifying the type of bone in the implant placement area and subsequently determining the prognosis of the treatment plan.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Oral Radiology
References
1. Eskandarloo A, Abdinian M, Salemi F, Hashemzadeh Z, Safaei M. Effect of object location on the density measurement in cone-beam computed tomography versus multislice computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012;9(Suppl 1):S81-7. PMID: 23814567
2. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C. Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34(4):267-72. PMID: 17371564 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x
3. Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol. 1991;62(1):2-4. PMID: 2002427 DOI: 10.1902/jop.1991.62.1.2
4. Shahlaie M, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 1. Quantitative computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(2):224-31. PMID: 12705300
5. Bergkvist G, Koh KJ, Sahlholm S, Klintstrom E, Lindh C. Bone density at implant sites and its relationship to assessment of bone quality and treatment outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(2):321-8. PMID: 20369091
6. Eskandarloo A, Arabi R, Bidgoli M, Yousefi F, Poorolajal J. Association between marginal bone loss and bone quality at dental implant sites based on evidence from cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019;10(1):36-41. PMID: 32015639 DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_185_18
7. Lekholm U, Zarb G. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb G, Alberktsson T, editors. Tissue-integrated prostheses:osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Pub Co; 1985. P. 199-209.
8. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2019. P. 259.
9. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for preoperative implant planning assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(6):1438-42. PMID: 23189294
10. de Oliveira RC, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF. Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105(2):231-8. PMID: 18230392 DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.08.007
11. Ekestubbe A, Thilander A, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Absorbed doses from computed tomography for dental implant surgery: comparison with conventional tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1993;22(1):13-7. PMID: 8508935 DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.22.1.8508935
12. Dula K, Mini R, van der Stelt PF, Lambrecht JT, Schneeberger P, Buser D. Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral computed tomography of the maxilla and mandible. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996;104(5-6):503-10. PMID: 9021317 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1996.tb00133.x
13. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(3):416-24. PMID: 15973953
14. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(7):832-6. PMID: 21545533 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02203.x
15. Angelopoulos C, Aghaloo T. Imaging technology in implant diagnosis. Dent Clin North Am. 2011;55(1):141-58. PMID: 21094723 DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2010.08.001
16. Valiyaparambil JV, Yamany I, Ortiz D, Shafer DM, Pendrys D, Freilich M, et al. Bone quality evaluation: comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(5):1271-7. PMID: 23057044
17. Li FB, Yu LY, Cai YD, Xie C. Jaw bone density assessments of implant sites using spiral CT and Simplant software. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2009;18(1):52-5. PMID: 19290428
18. Eskandarloo A, Saati S, Purabdolahi Ardakani M, Jamalpour M, Mezerji NM, Akheshteh V. Diagnostic accuracy of three cone beam computed tomography systems and periapical radiography for detection of fenestration around dental implants. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(3):376-81. PMID: 30166830 DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_103_18
19. Homolka P, Beer A, Birkfellner W, Nowotny R, Gahleitner A, Tschabitscher M, et al. Bone mineral density measurement with dental quantitative CT prior to dental implant placement in cadaver mandibles: pilot study. Radiology.2002;224(1):247-52. PMID: 12091691 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2241010948
20. Truhlar RS, Orenstein IH, Morris HF, Ochi S. Distribution of bone quality in patients receiving endosseous dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55(12 Suppl 5):38-45. PMID: 9393425 DOI: 10.1016/s0278-2391(16)31196-x
21. Fuh LJ, Huang HL, Chen CS, Fu KL, Shen YW, Tu MG, et al. Variations in bone density at dental implant sites in different regions of the jawbone. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(5):346-51. PMID: 20113389 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02061.x
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |