Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

  • 제48권1호
  • /
  • Pages.41-49
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2234-7550(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-5930(eISSN)
대한구강악안면외과학회 (The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and digital panoramic radiography for detecting peri-implant alveolar bone changes using trabecular micro-structure analysis

  • Magat, Guldane (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University) ;
  • Oncu, Elif (Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University) ;
  • Ozcan, Sevgi (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University) ;
  • Orhan, Kaan (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University)
  • 투고 : 2021.08.02
  • 심사 : 2021.09.28
  • 발행 : 2022.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: We compared changes in fractal dimension (FD) and grayscale value (GSV) of peri-implant alveolar bone on digital panoramic radiography (DPR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) immediately after implant surgery and 12 months postoperative. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 16 patients who received posterior mandibular area dental implants with CBCT scans taken about 2 weeks after implantation and one year after implantation were analyzed. A region of interest was selected for each patient. FDs and GSVs were evaluated immediately after implant surgery and at 12-month follow-up to examine the functional loading of the implants. Results: There were no significant differences between DPR and CBCT measurements of FD values (P>0.05). No significant differences were observed between FD values and GSVs calculated after implant surgery and at the 12-month follow-up (P>0.05). GSVs were not correlated with FD values (P>0.05). Conclusion: The DPR and reconstructed panoramic CBCT images exhibit similar image quality for the assessment of FD. There were no changes in FD values or GSVs of the peri-implant trabecular bone structure at the 12-month postoperative evaluation of the functional loading of the implant in comparison to values immediately after implantation. GSVs representing bone mass do not align with FD values that predict bone microstructural parameters. Therefore, GSVs and FDs should be considered different parameters for assessing bone quality.

키워드

과제정보

This research was conducted at the Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Konya, Turkey. The authors thank Mr. Gokhan Kocturk (https://tr.linkedin.com/in/gokhan-kocturk) for statistician review.

참고문헌

  1. Donos N, Mardas N, Chadha V. Clinical outcomes of implants following lateral bone augmentation: systematic assessment of available options (barrier membranes, bone grafts, split osteotomy). J Clin Periodontol 2008;35(8 Suppl):173-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01269.x
  2. Retzepi M, Donos N. Guided bone regeneration: biological principle and therapeutic applications. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:567-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01922.x
  3. Santing HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Meijer HJ. Performance of the Straumann Bone Level Implant system for anterior single-tooth replacements in augmented and nonaugmented sites: a prospective cohort study with 60 consecutive patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:941-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02486.x
  4. Shalabi MM, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. The effects of implant surface roughness and surgical technique on implant fixation in an in vitro model. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:172-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01202.x
  5. Brunski JB, Puleo DA, Nanci A. Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:15-46.
  6. Stanford CM, Brand RA. Toward an understanding of implant occlusion and strain adaptive bone modeling and remodeling. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:553-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70209-x
  7. Bidez MW, Misch CE. Force transfer in implant dentistry: basic concepts and principles. J Oral Implantol 1992;18:264-74.
  8. Drago CJ. Rates of osseointegration of dental implants with regard to anatomical location. J Prosthodont 1992;1:29-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849x.1992.tb00423.x
  9. Jemt T, Lekholm U. Oral implant treatment in posterior partially edentulous jaws: a 5-year follow-up report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:635-40.
  10. Lee DH, Ku Y, Rhyu IC, Hong JU, Lee CW, Heo MS, et al. A clinical study of alveolar bone quality using the fractal dimension and the implant stability quotient. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2010;40:19-24. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2010.40.1.19
  11. Yasar F, Akgunlu F. Fractal dimension and lacunarity analysis of dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:261-7. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/85149245
  12. Huh KH, Baik JS, Yi WJ, Heo MS, Lee SS, Choi SC, et al. Fractal analysis of mandibular trabecular bone: optimal tile sizes for the tile counting method. Imaging Sci Dent 2011;41:71-8. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2011.41.2.71
  13. Zeytinoglu M, Ilhan B, Dundar N, Boyacioglu H. Fractal analysis for the assessment of trabecular peri-implant alveolar bone using panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:519-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1245-y
  14. Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:393-7. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30969642
  15. Melsen B, Lang NP. Biological reactions of alveolar bone to orthodontic loading of oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:144-52. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012002144.x
  16. Bianchi AE, Dolci G Jr, Sberna MT, Sanfilippo S. Factors affecting bone response around loaded titanium dental implants: a literature review. J Appl Biomater Biomech 2005;3:135-40.
  17. Jung YH. Evaluation of peri-implant bone using fractal analysis. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2005;35:121-5.
  18. Perrotti V, Aprile G, Degidi M, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. Fractal analysis: a novel method to assess roughness organization of implant surface topography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011;31:633-9.
  19. Bollen AM, Taguchi A, Hujoel PP, Hollender LG. Fractal dimension on dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001;30:270-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600630
  20. Dohan Ehrenfest DM. Fractal patterns applied to implant surface: definitions and perspectives. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:506-9. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00081
  21. Gonzalez-Garcia R, Monje F. Is micro-computed tomography reliable to determine the microstructure of the maxillary alveolar bone? Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:730-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02478.x
  22. Muller R, Van Campenhout H, Van Damme B, Van Der Perre G, Dequeker J, Hildebrand T, et al. Morphometric analysis of human bone biopsies: a quantitative structural comparison of histological sections and micro-computed tomography. Bone 1998;23:59-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/s8756-3282(98)00068-4
  23. Swain MV, Xue J. State of the art of Micro-CT applications in dental research. Int J Oral Sci 2009;1:177-88. https://doi.org/10.4248/IJOS09031
  24. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:416-24.
  25. Turkyilmaz I, Sennerby L, McGlumphy EA, Tozum TF. Biomechanical aspects of primary implant stability: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:113-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00097.x
  26. Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E. Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:503-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01672.x
  27. Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, et al.; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol 2013;86:20120135. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20120135
  28. Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Bosmans H. Modern dental imaging: a review of the current technology and clinical applications in dental practice. Eur Radiol 2010;20:2637-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1836-1
  29. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC; American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;113:817-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005
  30. White SC, Cohen JM, Mourshed FA. Digital analysis of trabecular pattern in jaws of patients with sickle cell anemia. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000;29:119-24. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600516
  31. Koh KJ, Park HN, Kim KA. Prediction of age-related osteoporosis using fractal analysis on panoramic radiographs. Imaging Sci Dent 2012;42:231-5. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2012.42.4.231
  32. Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977;16:1-132.
  33. Haire TJ, Hodgskinson R, Ganney PS, Langton CM. A comparison of porosity, fabric and fractal dimension as predictors of the Young's modulus of equine cancellous bone. Med Eng Phys 1998;20:588-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1350-4533(98)00063-0
  34. Wilding RJ, Slabbert JC, Kathree H, Owen CP, Crombie K, Delport P. The use of fractal analysis to reveal remodelling in human alveolar bone following the placement of dental implants. Arch Oral Biol 1995;40:61-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(94)00138-2
  35. Southard TE, Southard KA, Jakobsen JR, Hillis SL, Najim CA. Fractal dimension in radiographic analysis of alveolar process bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82:569-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1079-2104(96)80205-8
  36. Geraets WG, van der Stelt PF. Fractal properties of bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000;29:144-53. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600524
  37. Pawelzik J, Cohnen M, Willers R, Becker J. A comparison of conventional panoramic radiographs with volumetric computed tomography images in the preoperative assessment of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:979-84. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2002.34399
  38. Mischkowski RA, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Dreiseidler T, Keeve E, Zoller JE. Diagnostic quality of panoramic views obtained by a newly developed digital volume tomography device for maxillofacial imaging. Quintessence Int 2007;38:763-72.
  39. Pittayapat P, Galiti D, Huang Y, Dreesen K, Schreurs M, Souza PC, et al. An in vitro comparison of subjective image quality of panoramic views acquired via 2D or 3D imaging. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:293-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0698-0
  40. dos Santos Corpas L, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, Huang Y, Naert I, Duyck J. Peri-implant bone tissue assessment by comparing the outcome of intra-oral radiograph and cone beam computed tomography analyses to the histological standard. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:492-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02029.x
  41. Sansare K, Singh D, Karjodkar F. Changes in the fractal dimension on pre- and post-implant panoramic radiographs. Oral Radiol 2012;28:15-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-011-0075-8
  42. Ilhan B, Guneri P, Saracoglu A, Koca H, Boyacioglu H. A comparison of fractal dimension values of peri-implant bone and healthy contralateral side using panoramic radiographs. J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2015;3:1-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-3841.151636
  43. Hua Y, Nackaerts O, Duyck J, Maes F, Jacobs R. Bone quality assessment based on cone beam computed tomography imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:767-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01677.x
  44. Gonzalez-Martin O, Lee EA, Veltri M. CBCT fractal dimension changes at the apex of immediate implants placed using undersized drilling. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:954-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02246.x
  45. Huang Y, Van Dessel J, Liang X, Depypere M, Zhong W, Ma G, et al. Effects of immediate and delayed loading on peri-implant trabecular structures: a cone beam CT evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16:873-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12063
  46. Appleton RS, Nummikoski PV, Pigno MA, Cronin RJ, Chung KH. A radiographic assessment of progressive loading on bone around single osseointegrated implants in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:161-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01089.x
  47. Barone A, Covani U, Cornelini R, Gherlone E. Radiographic bone density around immediately loaded oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:610-5. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00878.x
  48. Goodsitt MM, Chan HP, Way TW, Larson SC, Christodoulou EG, Kim J. Accuracy of the CT numbers of simulated lung nodules imaged with multi-detector CT scanners. Med Phys 2006;33:3006-17. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2219332
  49. Mori S, Endo M, Tsunoo T, Kandatsu S, Tanada S, Aradate H, et al. Physical performance evaluation of a 256-slice CT-scanner for four-dimensional imaging. Med Phys 2004;31:1348-56. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1747758
  50. Yi WJ, Heo MS, Lee SS, Choi SC, Huh KH, Lee SP. Direct measurement of trabecular bone anisotropy using directional fractal dimension and principal axes of inertia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:110-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.11.005