Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images

被引:131
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
    Beer, A
    Gahleitner, A
    Holm, A
    Tschabitscher, M
    Homolka, P
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2003, 14 (05) : 616 - 620
  • [4] STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
    BLAND, JM
    ALTMAN, DG
    [J]. 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
    Devlin, H
    Horner, K
    Ledgerton, D
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1998, 79 (03) : 323 - 327
  • [7] Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral computed tomography of the maxilla and mandible
    Dula, K
    Mini, R
    vanderStelt, PF
    Lambrecht, JT
    Schneeberger, P
    Buser, D
    [J]. 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
    Esposito, M
    Hirsch, JM
    Lekholm, U
    Thomsen, P
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, 1998, 106 (01) : 527 - 551