Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images

被引:133
作者
Gomes de Oliveira, Rubelisa Candido [1 ]
Leles, Claudio Rodrigues [1 ]
Normanha, Leonardo Martins [2 ]
Lindh, Christina [3 ]
Ribeiro-Rotta, Rejane Faria [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Goias, Sch Dent, Dept Oral Rehabil, BR-74280220 Goiania, Go, Brazil
[2] Goiano Inst Radiol, Goiania, Go, Brazil
[3] Malmo Univ, Fac Odontol, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Radiol, Malmo, Sweden
[4] Univ Fed Goias, Sch Dent, Dept Oral Med, BR-74280220 Goiania, Go, Brazil
来源
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTOLOGY | 2008年 / 105卷 / 02期
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.08.007
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives. To evaluate the association between trabecular bone density measurements of potential implant sites made on axial DICOM images ( DentaCT software) and on the same images with eFilm workstation, to correlate bone densities in Hounsfield units ( HU) with subjective classification, and to establish a quantitative scale for each bone quality class. Study design. Twenty-seven maxillary and 27 mandibular computed tomographic ( CT) examinations of 75 potential implant sites were selected. Trabecular bone density was evaluated with DentaCT and eFilm. Bone quality was subjectively evaluated by 2 examiners. Descriptive statistics, between- and within-group comparison, correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman plot were used for data analysis. Results. DentaCT measurements were higher than eFilm ( P <.001). Bone type 2 was the most prevalent, and bone density was significantly reduced from bone types 1 to 4. Quantitative parameters ranged as follows: bone type 4 < 200 HU, bone types 2 and 3 > 200 to < 400 HU, and bone type 1 > 400 HU. Conclusion. Different qualities of bone can be found in any of the anatomical regions studied ( anterior and posterior sites of maxilla and mandible), which confirms the importance of a site-specific bone tissue evaluation prior to implant installation.
引用
收藏
页码:231 / 238
页数:8
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
Akdeniz B G, 2000, J Oral Implantol, V26, P114, DOI 10.1563/1548-1336(2000)026<0114:EOBHAB>2.3.CO
[2]  
2
[3]   Correlation of insertion torques with bone mineral density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible [J].
Beer, A ;
Gahleitner, A ;
Holm, A ;
Tschabitscher, M ;
Homolka, P .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2003, 14 (05) :616-620
[4]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[5]  
CHLOEL L, 2003, ORAL SURG ORAL MED O, V95, P364
[6]   A comparison of maxillary and mandibular bone mineral densities [J].
Devlin, H ;
Horner, K ;
Ledgerton, D .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1998, 79 (03) :323-327
[7]   Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral computed tomography of the maxilla and mandible [J].
Dula, K ;
Mini, R ;
vanderStelt, PF ;
Lambrecht, JT ;
Schneeberger, P ;
Buser, D .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, 1996, 104 (5-6) :503-510
[8]  
Ekestubbe A, 1993, Dentomaxillofac Radiol, V22, P13
[9]  
Ericsson L, 2002, INT J PERIODONT REST, V22, P9
[10]   Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants (I). Success criteria and epidemiology [J].
Esposito, M ;
Hirsch, JM ;
Lekholm, U ;
Thomsen, P .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, 1998, 106 (01) :527-551