All Issue

2018 Vol.22, Issue 2 Preview Page
June 2018. pp. 80-86
Abstract

Purpose: Radiological evaluation of bone quality as well as the shape of the alveolar bone of the edentulous part to be placed is very important f or successf ul implant placement. Recently, three- dimensional analysis using computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography has been actively used before implant surgery, but periapical and panoramic radiographs have been used for a long time to evaluate alveolar bone using low radiation doses. The purpose of this study was to compare the Hounsfield unit value of CT after dividing maxillary, mandibular, anterior, and posterior teeth into whether periapical and panoramic radiographs could be effectively used for bone quality evaluation.

Materials and Methods: The periapical x-ray, panoramic x-ray, and conventional CT were taken from a total of 100 patients who have undergone the implant treatment. For 3D analysis, the virtual implants with a diameter of 4 mm and a length of 10 mm were placed in the implant planning software and the bone quality of 1 mm circumference was measured by Hounsfield unit value. Periapical x-ray and panoramic x-ray were also evaluated for bone quality. The degree of agreement among them was evaluated.

Results: In 3D image analysis, reformatted cross-sectional, panoramic image analysis, bony quality evaluation similar to CT analysis was possible in maxillary anterior/posterior teeth with periapical and panoramic radiographs.

Conclusion: Periapical and panoramic radiographs could be used to evaluate the implant bone quality of the maxillary anterior and maxillary posterior.

References
  1. Al-Ekrish AA. Radiology of Implant Dentistry. Radiol Clin North Am. 2018; 56(1): 141-156.10.1016/j.rcl.2017.08.01029157544
  2. Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73(1): 7-21.10.1111/prd.1218528000280
  3. Greenberg AM. Digital technologies for dental implant treatment planning and guided surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2015; 27(2): 319-340.10.1016/j.coms.2015.01.01025951962
  4. Jeong KI, Kim SG, Oh JS, et al. Consideration of various bone quality evaluation methods. Implant Dent. 2013; 22(1): 55-59.10.1097/ID.0b013e31827778d923287977
  5. Lindh C, Oliveira GH, Leles CR, et al. Bone quality assessment in routine dental implant treatment among Brazilian and Swedish specialists. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25(9): 1004-1009.10.1111/clr.1222123919816
  6. Monsour PA, Dudhia R. Implant radiography and radiology. Aust Dent J. 2008; 53 Suppl 1: S11-25.10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00037.x18498579
  7. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, et al. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26(1): e1-7.10.1111/clr.1231524325572
  8. Ritter L, Elger MC, Rothamel D, et al. Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 43(6): 20130088.10.1259/dmfr.2013008824786136PMC4141670
  9. Shelley AM, Glenny AM, Goodwin M, et al. Conventional radiography and cross-sectional imaging when planning dental implants in the anterior edentulous mandible to support an overdenture: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 43(2): 20130321.10.1259/dmfr.2013032124271462PMC4064657
  10. Toia M, Stocchero M, Cecchinato F, et al. Clinical Considerations of Adapted Drilling Protocol by Bone Quality Perception. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32(6): 1288-1295.10.11607/jomi.588129140373
  11. Baciut M, Hedesiu M, Bran S, et al. Pre- and postoperative assessment of sinus grafting procedures using cone-beam computed tomography compared with panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24(5): 512-516.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02408.x22220751
  12. Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, et al. Diagnostic imaging of trabecular bone microstructure for oral implants: a literature review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 42(3): 20120075.10.1259/dmfr.2012007523420864PMC3667540
  13. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, et al. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(1): 20140238.10.1259/dmfr.2014023825315442PMC4277442
  14. Valiyaparambil JV, Yamany I, Ortiz D, et al. Bone quality evaluation: comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27(5): 1271-1277.23057044
  15. Wakimoto M, Matsumura T, Ueno T, et al. Bone quality and quantity of the anterior maxillary trabecular bone in dental implant sites. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23(11): 1314-1319.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02347.x22151688
  16. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(1): 79-84.10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001079.x
  17. Cicchetti DV, Nelson LD. Re-examining threats to the reliability and validity of putative brain-behavior relationships: new guidelines for assessing the effect of patients lost to follow-up. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1994; 16(3): 339-343.10.1080/016886394084026447929701
  18. Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, et al. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl: 55-77.10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.424660190
  19. El Sahili N, Nasseh I, Berberi A, et al. Impact of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Dose in Pre-Surgical Implant Analysis. Open Dent J. 2018; 12: 94-103.10.2174/187421060181201009429492175PMC5814949
  20. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, et al. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18(1): 88.10.1186/s12903-018-0523-529764458PMC5952365
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Academy of Oral & Maxillofacial Implantology
  • Publisher(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회
  • Journal Title :IMPLANTOLOGY
  • Journal Title(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회지
  • Volume : 22
  • No :2
  • Pages :80-86
  • Received Date :2018. 06. 11
  • Accepted Date : 2018. 06. 21