Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지

Bone density around the fixture after function of implant molar prosthesis using CBCT

임플란트 보철 기능후 고정체 주변 콘빔CT 골밀도 평가

  • Jung, Jae-Hyun (Department of Dentistry, Seo Nam University) ;
  • Hwang, In-Taik (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University) ;
  • Jung, Byung-Hyun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Duk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University) ;
  • Kang, Dong-Wan (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University)
  • 정재현 (서남대학교 치과학교실) ;
  • 황인택 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 보철학교실) ;
  • 정병현 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 보철학교실) ;
  • 김재덕 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면방사선학교실) ;
  • 강동완 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 보철학교실)
  • Received : 2010.01.09
  • Accepted : 2010.01.31
  • Published : 2010.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to examine the significance of increased bone density according to whether bone grafts were applied using demographic data with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and to compare the bone densities between before and after implant prosthesis using the Hounsfield index. Materials and Methods : Thirty-six randomly selected computed tomography (CT) scans were used for the analysis. The same sites were evaluated digitally using the Hounsfield scale with V-Implant $2.0^{TM}$, and the results were compared with maxillary posterior bone graft. Statistical data analysis was carried out to determine the correlation between the recorded Hounsfield unit (HU) of the bone graft and implant prosthesis using a Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon Matched-pairs test. Results : The bone grafted maxillary posterior teeth showed an increase in the mean values from-157 HU to 387 HU, whereas non-grafted maxillary posterior teeth showed an increase from 62 HU to 342 HU. After implantation, the grafted and non-grafted groups showed significantly higher bone density than before implantation. However, the grafted group showed significantly more changes than the non-grafted group. Conclusion : Bone density measurements using CBCT might provide an objective assessment of the bone quality as well as the correlation between bone density (Hounsfield scale) and bone grafts in the maxillary molar area.

Keywords

References

  1. Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 39-42.
  2. Beer A, Gahleitner A, Holm A, Homolka P. Correlation of insertion torques with bone mineral density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14 : 616-20. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00932.x
  3. Matsue I, Zimmermann ER, Collins CK, Best JT. Microdensitometric analysis of human autogenous implant II Two dimensional density and pattern analysis of interproximal alveolar bone. J Periodont 1971; 42 : 435-8. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1971.42.7.435
  4. Katoh T, Shimada K, Chiba M, Kobyashi T. The basic study on bone mineral assessment with dual energy radiographic densitometry method. Oral Radiol 1978; 18 : 278-95.
  5. Ishigaki T, Sakuma S, Horikawa Y, Yamaguchi H. One-shot dual energy subtraction imaging. Radiology 1986; 161 : 271-3. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.161.1.3532182
  6. Park WK, Choi EH, Kim JD. A comparative study of quantitative assessment of bone mineral density of mandible. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 1999; 29 : 161-73.
  7. Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 1. Description of system. Br J Radiol 1973; 46 : 1016-22. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016
  8. Schwarz MS, Rothman SLG, Rhodes ML, Chafes N. Computed tomography: Part I. Preoperative assessment of the mandible for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2 : 137-41.
  9. Schwarz MS, Rothman SLG, Rhodes ML, Chafes N. Computed tomography: Part II. Preoperative assessment of the mandible for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987; 2 : 143-8.
  10. Boris P, Bundgaard F, Olsen A. The CT (Hounsfield unit) number of brain tissue in healthy infants. A new reliable method for detection of possible degenerative disease. Childs Nerv Syst 1987; 3 : 175-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00717896
  11. Robertson DD, Huang KH. Quantitative bone measurements using Xray computed tomography with second-order correction. Med Phys 1986; 13 : 474-9. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595971
  12. Taguchi A, Tanimoto K, Ogawa M, Sunayashiki T, Wada T. Effect of size of region of interest on precision of bone mineral measurements of the mandible by quantitative computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 20 : 25-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20.1.1884848
  13. Norton RM, Gamble C. Bone classification; an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Impl Res 2001; 12 : 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001079.x
  14. Fanuscu MI, Chang TL. Three-dimensional morphometric analysis of human cadaver bone; microstructural data from maxilla and madible. Clin oral Implants Res 2004; 15 : 213-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00969.x
  15. Honma K, Kobayashi T, Nakajima T, Hayahi T. Computed tomographic evaluation of bone formation after secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 57 : 1209-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(99)90488-3
  16. Naitoh M, Katsumata A, Kubota Y, Arkji E. Assessment of three dimensional x-ray images; reconstruction from conventional tomograms, compact computerized tomography images, and multislice helical computerized tomography imges. J Oral Impaltnol 2005; 31 : 234-41. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2005)31[234:AOTXIR]2.0.CO;2
  17. Ganz SD. Presurgical with CT-derived fabrication of surgical guides. J Oral Maxillfac Surg 2005; 63 : 59-71.
  18. Ari Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic appratus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28 : 245-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600448
  19. Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Araki M, Iwai K, Sawada K, Akiyama Y. Comparison of image performance between cone-beam computed tomography for dental use and four-row multidetector helical CT. J Oral Sci 2006; 48 : 27-34. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.48.27
  20. Frederiksen NL. Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 80 : 540-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(05)80153-2
  21. Wyatt CC, Pharoah MJ. Imaging techniques and image interpretation for dental implant treatment. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11 : 442-52.
  22. Tannaz S, Petros DD, Gary MR, Terrence JG, William MR. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21 : 290-7.
  23. Turkyilmaz I, Tözüm TF, Tumer C. Bone density assessment of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2007; 34 : 267-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x
  24. Shahlaie M, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 1. Quantitative computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 224-31.
  25. Goo JG, Kim HS, Kim JD. Quantitative assessment of periimplant bone density (HU) on CBCT image. Korean J Oral Maxilloac Radio 2008; 38: 1-5.
  26. 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.
  27. Consensus statement, Academy of osseointegration sinus graft conference, The center for executive education, Babson college, Welleslay, MA, 1996; Nov. 16-7.