牙种植区骨密度的CBCT评价<a style="z-index: 2147483647; border-bottom: 0px; position: absolute; border-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; width: 60px; padding-right: 0px; height: 25px; visibility: hidden; border-top: 0px; top: 0px; cursor: pointer; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; left: 0px" id="bing-msbbp-search-anchor" target="_blank"></a>

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2014.03.009

《口腔颌面外科杂志》 ›› 2014, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (3): 204-. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2014.03.009

牙种植区骨密度的CBCT评价

郝永明，赵伟，邢一栋，于丽丽，邹德荣

上海交通大学附属第六人民医院口腔科，上海 200233

出版日期:2014-05-28 发布日期:2015-06-24
通讯作者: 邹德荣，教授. E-mail:derongzou@gmail.com
作者简介:郝永明（1986—），男，安徽芜湖人，住院医师，硕士.
基金资助:
上海市科学技术委员会基金项目（12JC1407300），（12ZR1447200）；上海市卫生局基金项目（20134Y192）；上海市第六人民医院院内基金项目（1517、1582）

Assessments of Jaw Bone Density at Implant Sites Using CBCT

HAO Yong-ming, ZHAO Wei, XING Yi-Dong, YU Li-li, ZOU De-rong

Department of Stomatology, the Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200233, China

Online:2014-05-28 Published:2015-06-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：应用锥形束CT(cone beam computer tomography，CBCT)及Simplant软件，对拟种植的颌骨区骨密度定量测量，参考Lekholm和Zarb分类法对其进行分类，得出一种客观定量的颌骨质量分类方法。方法：通过CBCT对109例拟种植患者的上下颌骨扫描重建，应用Simplant软件对195个种植区骨密度进行测量，骨密度以Hounsfield units(HU)表示。采用SPSS19.0软件以Mann—Whitney U检验进行统计学分析，比较不同区域的骨密度差异。结果：所有拟种植位点平均骨密度为（369.15±181.60)HU。骨密度比较：下颌前牙区[(699.41±138.76)HU]>上颌前牙区[(463.96±145.93)HU]>下颌后牙区[(400.66±123.32)HU]>上颌后牙区[(236.19±150.85)HU]。各类骨的密度参考值：Ⅳ类骨(D4)为＜200HU，Ⅱ/Ⅲ类骨(D2/3)为200～600HU，Ⅰ类骨(D1)为＞600HU。结论：下颌前牙区平均骨密度值最大，上颌后牙区平均骨密度值最小。据此得出一种客观的定量骨分类方法，对种植术前评估有重要意义。

关键词: CBCT； , 骨密度； , 种植； , 骨分类

Abstract: Objective: To assess the bone density of dental implant sites using CBCT and Simplant software, and establish a quantitative ranges for each bone quality classification according to Lekholm and Zarb grouping． Methods: 109 patients’ jaw bone were scanned by CBCT, the images were reconstructed by the Simplant software． The bone density of 195 potential implant sites was measured and the results were recorded using Hounsfield units（HU)． The data was analyzed with SPSS 19.0 software package for Mann—Whitney U test． Results： The mean bone density in all implant sites was（369.15±181.60) HU． The rank of mean bone density was anterior mandible [(699.41±138.76) HU]>anterior maxilla[(463.96±145.93) HU]>posterior mandible[(400.66±123.32) HU]>posterior maxilla[(236.19±150.85) HU]． Quantitative parameters ranged as follows: bone quality of D4 was less than 200 HU, bone quality of D2/3 was 200 to 600 HU, and bone quality of D1 was above 600 HU. Conclusion: Anterior region of mandible has the highest mean bone density and posterior region of maxilla has the lowest mean bone density． It is therefore proposed that an objective classification which confirms the importance of a site-specific bone tissue evaluation prior to implant installation.

Key words: CBCT, bone density, implant, bone classification

中图分类号:

郝永明，赵伟，邢一栋，于丽丽，邹德荣. 牙种植区骨密度的CBCT评价[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2014, 24(3): 204-.

HAO Yong-ming, ZHAO Wei, XING Yi-Dong, YU Li-li, ZOU De-rong. Assessments of Jaw Bone Density at Implant Sites Using CBCT[J]. 《Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery》, 2014, 24(3): 204-.

https://journal06.magtech.org.cn/Jweb_joms/CN/Y2014/V24/I3/204

参考文献

[1] Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Iwai K, et al. A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with a multidetector row helical CT machine[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2003, 95(3): 371-377.

[2] Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Araki M, et al. Comparison of image performance between cone-beam computed tomography for dental use and four-row multidetector helical CT[J]. J Oral Sci, 2006, 48(1): 27-34.

[3] Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S, et al. Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2007, 36(8):465-471.

[4] Nakata K, Naitoh M, Izumi M, et al. Effectiveness of dental computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of periradicular lesion of each root of a multirooted tooth: a case report[J]. J Endod, 2006, 32(6): 583-587.

[5] Lekholm U&Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation[M]// Branemark PI, Zarb GA,Albrektsson T. Tissue Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publ Co, 1985: 199-209.

[6] Misch CE, Density of bone: Effect on treatment planning, surgical approach, and healing[M]// Misch CE, Contemporary implant dentistry. St Louis: Mosby-Year Book, Inc, 1993: 469-485.

[7] Trisi P , Rao W. Bone classification: clinical-histomorphometric comparison[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1999, 10(1):1-7.

[8] Jaffin RA,Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis[J]. J Periodontol, 1991, 62(1): 2-4.

[9] Triplett RG, Mason ME, Alfonso WF, et al. Endosseous cylinder implants in severely atrophic mandibles[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1991, 6(3): 264-269.

[10] Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, et al. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results[J]. Eur Radiol, 1998, 8(9):1558-1564.

[11] Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, et al. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography[J]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2004, 33(2): 83-86.

[12] Turkyilmaz I, Tozüm TF,Tumer C. Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2007, 34(4): 267-272.

[13] Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, et al. Assessment of bone segmentation quality of cone-beam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2006, 102(2): 225-234.

[14] Tinsley D, Watson CJ, Ogden AR. A survey of U.K. centres on implant failures[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 1999, 26(1): 14-18.

[15] Norton MR ,Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2001, 12(1): 79-84.

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

牙种植区骨密度的CBCT评价

Assessments of Jaw Bone Density at Implant Sites Using CBCT

PDF

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 13

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	冯海楠，王淼，常晓峰，杜良智，周慧霞，李晓红，刘少丽，贺龙龙. 上颌窦底提升术后种植修复的十年临床回顾分析[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2019, 29(3): 159-.
[2]	聂红永，聂红兵，董红，王芳，王冰阳，王志强. 微创拔牙即刻种植动物实验[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2017, 27(1): 43-.
[3]	朱正娴，宋萌，潘劲松，李长真. 锥形束CT对牙种植区骨密度测量的应用[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2017, 27(1): 39-.
[4]	何家才，邹多宏. 牙种植体支持式覆盖义齿在临床中的应用[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2016, 26(4): 229-237.
[5]	尹伟，刘向辉，孙卫革，王晨辰. 双尖牙区即刻种植位点保存的CBCT观察研究[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2016, 26(3): 202-206.
[6]	王佐林，王方. 牙种植修复中的咬合重建、数字化技术、无牙颌种植修复方法——“争鸣与共识”种植论坛（第二季）学术共识[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2016, 26(3): 153-155.
[7]	李韶伟1，王国世2，沙烟直2. 带蒂结缔组织瓣在美学区单牙种植修复中的应用[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2016, 26(1): 42-46.
[8]	包立1，张令达1，施乐2，余优成3. 伴上颌窦囊肿的上颌窦底提升牙种植临床分析[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2015, 25(6): 436-.
[9]	邓春富，张馨文. 浅谈前牙美学区种植术式的选择与思考[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2015, 25(6): 393-.
[10]	刘向辉，张磊，黄辉，张静东，张林，沈彬. 上颌即刻种植后牙槽骨改建的CBCT分析[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2015, 25(4): 280-283.
[11]	孙卫革1，张磊1，耿丽红2，刘向辉1. 牙周病患者拔牙后即刻种植与延期种植的临床研究[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2015, 25(3): 209-.
[12]	张磊，黄辉，张林，杨建，张亨国，刘向辉. 牙周病患者拔牙后即刻种植的临床研究[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2014, 24(1): 44-.
[13]	朱立伦1，龚逸明2，阮宏2，顾章愉1，余优成2. 低位上颌窦患者多后牙缺失倾斜种植体修复的初步研究[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, 2013, 23(6): 459-462.

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

牙种植区骨密度的CBCT评价

Assessments of Jaw Bone Density at Implant Sites Using CBCT

PDF

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 13

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价