The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of dental implantation on bone mineral density distribution: a pilot study

  • Lee, Damian Jae-whan (Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Moon, Eun-sang (Division of Orthodontics, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Stephen, Kenneth (The Ohio State University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Liu, Jie (Division of Orthodontics and Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Do-Gyoon (Division of Orthodontics, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2022.01.06
  • Accepted : 2022.03.31
  • Published : 2022.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. Masticatory loading triggers active bone remodeling, altering alveolar bone mineral density (BMD). While dental implants are placed to bear masticatory loading, their influence on changing bone properties has not been fully investigated. Objective of this pilot study was to examine whether the dental implantation has an effect on BMD distribution of bone by comparing dentate, edentulous, and edentulous patients with implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 19 partially edentulous patients (Dent), 19 edentulous patients (Edent), and 16 edentulous patients who received implants in the mandible (Edent+Im), were obtained. CBCT images were also obtained from 5 patients within Edent+Im group, before implant placement and after implant loading. Basal cortical bone region of the mandible was digitally isolated. A histogram of gray levels proportional to BMD was obtained to assess mean, histogram standard deviation (HSD), fifth percentile of low and high values (Low5 and High5) of the BMD distribution. Multivariate analysis of variance and paired t-test were used to compare the BMD parameters among the 3 dental status groups and between pre- and post-implantation, respectively. RESULTS. Edentulous patients with implants had significantly greater HSD and High5 values compared to edentulous patients (P < .013). All other comparisons were not significant (P > .097). Mean, HSD, and High5 values significantly increased after receiving implants (P < .022). CONCLUSION. The current findings suggested that receiving dental implants promoted oral bone mineralization for edentulous patients. The longitudinal investigation could provide valuable information on understanding the effects of implantation on the behavior of oral bone quality.

Keywords

References

  1. Liu J, Chen HY, DoDo H, Yousef H, Firestone AR, Chaudhry J, Johnston WM, Lee DJ, Emam HA, Kim DG. Efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography in evaluating bone quality for optimum implant treatment planning. Implant Dent 2017;26:405-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0000000000000542
  2. Meena A, Jain V, Singh N, Arora N, Jha R. Effect of implant-supported prosthesis on the bite force and masticatory efficiency in subjects with shortened dental arches. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41:87-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12122
  3. Douglass CW, Shih A, Ostry L. Will there be a need for complete dentures in the United States in 2020? J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:5-8. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.121203
  4. Jahangiri L, Devlin H, Ting K, Nishimura I. Current perspectives in residual ridge remodeling and its clinical implications: a review. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:224-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70116-7
  5. Taylor TT, Gans SI, Jones EM, Firestone AR, Johnston WM, Kim DG. Comparison of micro-CT and cone beam CT-based assessments for relative difference of grey level distribution in a human mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:25117764. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/25117764
  6. England GM, Moon ES, Roth J, Deguchi T, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Kim DG. Conditions and calibration to obtain comparable grey values between different clinical cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017;46:20160322. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160322
  7. Kim DG. Can dental cone beam computed tomography assess bone mineral density? J Bone Metab 2014;21:117-26. https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2014.21.2.117
  8. Ejiri S, Toyooka E, Tanaka M, Anwar RB, Kohno S. Histological and histomorphometrical changes in rat alveolar bone following antagonistic tooth extraction and/or ovariectomy. Arch Oral Biol 2006;51:941-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2006.05.006
  9. Gallina S, Barranco-Piedra S, Torres-Lagares D, Baroukh B, Llorens A, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Saffar JL, Cherruau M, Lesclous P. Estrogen withdrawal transiently increased bone turnover without affecting the bone balance along the tooth socket in rats. J Periodontol 2009;80:2035-44. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090297
  10. Naveh GR, Lev-Tov Chattah N, Zaslansky P, Shahar R, Weiner S. Tooth-PDL-bone complex: response to compressive loads encountered during mastication - a review. Arch Oral Biol 2012;57:1575-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2012.07.006
  11. Sebaoun JD, Kantarci A, Turner JW, Carvalho RS, Van Dyke TE, Ferguson DJ. Modeling of trabecular bone and lamina dura following selective alveolar decortication in rats. J Periodontol 2008;79:1679-88. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080024
  12. Brunski JB. In vivo bone response to biomechanical loading at the bone/dental-implant interface. Adv Dent Res 1999;13:99-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374990130012301
  13. Al-Omiri MK, Sghaireen MG, Alhijawi MM, Alzoubi IA, Lynch CD, Lynch E. Maximum bite force following unilateral implant-supported prosthetic treatment: within-subject comparison to opposite dentate side. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41:624-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12174
  14. Baca E, Yengin E, Gokcen-Rohlig B, Sato S. In vivo evaluation of occlusalcontact area and maximum bite force in patients with various types of implant-supported prostheses. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:1181-7. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2012.757360
  15. Muller F, Hernandez M, Grutter L, Aracil-Kessler L, Weingart D, Schimmel M. Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses: a cross-sectional multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:144-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02213.x
  16. Kennedy KS, Jones EM, Kim DG, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. A prospective clinical study to evaluate early success of short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:170-7. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2810