Assessments of Jaw Bone Density at Implant Sites Using CBCT

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2014.03.009

Abstract

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

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

CLC Number:

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-.

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-.

/ / Recommend / Download Citations

URL: https://journal06.magtech.org.cn/Jweb_joms/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2014.03.009

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

References

[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.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export