Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2017; 11(03): 311-316
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_14_17
Original Article
European Journal of Dentistry

Predictability of bone density at posterior mandibular implant sites using cone-beam computed tomography intensity values

Mustafa Alkhader
1   Department of Oral Surgery and Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
,
Malik Hudieb
2   Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
,
Yousef Khader
3   Department of Community Medicine, Public Health and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the predictability of bone density at posterior mandibular implant sites using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) intensity values. Materials and Methods: CBCT cross-sectional images for 436 posterior mandibular implant sites were selected for the study. Using Invivo software (Anatomage, San Jose, California, USA), two observers classified the bone density into three categories: low, intermediate, and high, and CBCT intensity values were generated. Results: Based on the consensus of the two observers, 15.6% of sites were of low bone density, 47.9% were of intermediate density, and 36.5% were of high density. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis showed that CBCT intensity values had a high predictive power for predicting high density sites (area under the curve [AUC] =0.94, P < 0.005) and intermediate density sites (AUC = 0.81, P < 0.005). The best cut-off value for intensity to predict intermediate density sites was 218 (sensitivity = 0.77 and specificity = 0.76) and the best cut-off value for intensity to predict high density sites was 403 (sensitivity = 0.93 and specificity = 0.77). Conclusions: CBCT intensity values are considered useful for predicting bone density at posterior mandibular implant sites.

Key words:

Bone density - cone-beam computed tomography - dental implants - predictability
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Hanif A, Qureshi S, Sheikh Z, Rashid H. Complications in implant dentistry. Eur J Dent 2017; 11: 135-40
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Swami V, Vijayaraghavan V, Swami V. Current trends to measure implant stability. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016; 16: 124-30
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Lekholm U. Osseointegrated implants in clinical practice. J Oral Implantol 1986; 12: 357-64
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Farré-Pagés N, Augé-Castro ML, Alaejos-Algarra F, Mareque-Bueno J, Ferrés-Padró E, Hernández-Alfaro F. Relation between bone density and primary implant stability. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011; 16: e62-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Turkyilmaz I, Tumer C, Ozbek EN, Tözüm TF. Relations between the bone density values from computerized tomography, and implant stability parameters: A clinical study of 230 regular platform implants. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 716-22
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Salimov F, Tatli U, Kürkçü M, Akoglan M, Oztunç H, Kurtoglu C. Evaluation of relationship between preoperative bone density values derived from cone beam computed tomography and implant stability parameters: A clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25: 1016-21
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 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: 832-6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21: 290-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Kaya S, Yavuz I, Uysal I, Akkus Z. Measuring bone density in healing periapical lesions by using cone beam computed tomography: A clinical investigation. J Endod 2012; 38: 28-31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Han S, Bayome M, Lee J, Lee YJ, Song HH, Kook YA. Evaluation of palatal bone density in adults and adolescents for application of skeletal anchorage devices. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 625-31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Razi T, Niknami M, Alavi Ghazani F. Relationship between Hounsfield Unit in CT Scan and Gray Scale in CBCT. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2014; 8: 107-10
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 873-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Liu Y, Bäuerle T, Pan L, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Heiss C. et al Calibration of cone beam CT using relative attenuation ratio for quantitative assessment of bone density: A small animal study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2013; 8: 733-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Sedlin ED, Hirsch C. Factors affecting the determination of the physical properties of femoral cortical bone. Acta Orthop Scand 1966; 37: 29-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark P. Tissue-Integrated Prosthese. Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry 1st ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985: p. 199-209
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Misch CE. Density of bone: Effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive boen loading. Int J Oral Implantol 1990; 6: 23-31
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Rebaudi A, Trisi P, Cella R, Cecchini G. Preoperative evaluation of bone quality and bone density using a novel CT/microCT-based hard-normal-soft classification system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 75-85
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 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: 416-24
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Fuster-Torres MÁ, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Relationships between bone density values from cone beam computed tomography, maximum insertion torque, and resonance frequency analysis at implant placement: A pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 1051-6
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Hao Y, Zhao W, Wang Y, Yu J, Zou D. Assessments of jaw bone density at implant sites using 3D cone-beam computed tomography. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2014; 18: 1398-403
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, Yilmaz B, Ersoy AE. Determination of bone quality of 372 implant recipient sites using Hounsfield unit from computerized tomography: A clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008; 10: 238-44
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: A 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991; 62: 2-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Jemt T, Lekholm U. Implant treatment in edentulous maxillae: A 5-year follow-up report on patients with different degrees of jaw resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10: 303-11
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Karatas OH, Toy E. Three-dimensional imaging techniques: A literature review. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 132-40
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Taylor TT, Gans SI, Jones EM, Firestone AR, Johnston WM, Kim DG. Comparison of micro-CT and cone beam CT-based assessments for relative difference of grey level distribution in a human mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 25117764
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 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: 231-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2013
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: An objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 79-84
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: Clinical-histomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999; 10: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Lee S, Gantes B, Riggs M, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 3. Bone quality evaluation during osteotomy and implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 208-12
    Search in Google Scholar