1887
2 - Unified National Conference of Iraqi Dental Colleges (UNCIDC)
  • ISSN: 1999-7086
  • EISSN: 1999-7094

Abstract

One of the critical factors for dental implant success is accurate clinical and radiological assessment. Cone-beam computed tomography systems (CBCT) allow surgeons to determine the quality and quantity before surgery, aiding in treatment planning. This study highlights the importance of such an assessment.

A total of 40 patients were referred to CBCT scanning for pre-dental implant assessment in the Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology department at Al-Shaheed Gazi Al Hariri Hospital from 2021 to 2022. The patients were between 18 and 50 years old. All data were analyzed with on-demand 3D software (Kavo OP 3D: Cone Beam 3D imaging Germany).

Regarding the ridge shape:

  1. In the upper anterior and posterior regions, the rectangular shape had the highest percentages of (62.5%) and (75%) respectively.
  2. In the lower anterior and posterior regions, the pyramidal shape had the highest percentages of (55%) and (60%), respectively, and the hourglass shape was the lowest in all areas.

Regarding bone density:

The highest bone density percentage in the anterior upper region was D3 (67%), while in the upper posterior region, D4 had the highest percentage (77.5%). In the lower anterior region, D2 had a more prominent percentage (52.5%), while in the lower posterior, D3 was predominant (82.6%).

From this study, it can be suggested that CBCT is the best modality for pre-implant radiographic assessment, and ridge shape and bone density are easily assessed using this method.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.uncidc.1
2024-01-24
2024-07-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jemtac/2024/2/jemtac.2024.uncidc.1.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.uncidc.1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Gulsahi A. Bone Quality Assessment for Dental Implants. In: Turkyilmaz I, editor. Implant Dentistry - The Most Promising Discipline of Dentistry. 1st ed. Croatia: InTech Open Access Publisher; 2011. p. 437-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Mupparapu M, Singer SR. Implant imaging for the dentist. JCan Dent Assoc 2004; 70::32.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent. 2008 Mar; 17:(1):5-15. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Araby Y, Zakaria W, Ramadan M, Salem W. Assessment of the effect of implant recipient site’s bone density on initial implant stability in the anterior mandibular region. J Am Sci, 2017; 13:(10):103-109. doi: 10.7537/marsjas131017.12.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Misch CE. In: Dental implant prosthetics. 1st ed. St Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2004. p. 59-63.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lingeshwar D, Dhanasekar B, Aparna IN. Diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res. 2010; 1::147-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berg H, Carlsson GE, Helkimo M. Changes in shape of posterior parts of upper jaws after extraction of teeth and prosthetic treatment. J Prosthet Dent. 1975 Sep; 34:(3):262-8. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(75)90102-x.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark DE, Danforth RA, Barnes RW, Burtch ML. Radiation absorbed from dental implant radiography: a comparison of linear tomography, CT scan, and panoramic and intra-oral techniques. J Oral Implantol. 1990; 16:(3):156-64.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lam RV. Contour changes of alveolar process following extraction. J Prosth Dent. 1960; 10:(1):25-32. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(60)90083-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Schwarz MS, Rothman SL, Chafetz N, Rhodes M. Computed tomography in dental implantation surgery. Dent Clin North Am. 1989 Oct; 33:(4):555-97.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. McGivney GP, Haughton V, Strandt JA, Eichholz JE, Lubar DM. A comparison of computer-assisted tomography and data-gathering modalities in prosthodontics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer; 1:(1):55-68.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Turkyilmaz I, Tözüm TF, Tumer C. Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil. 2007 Apr; 34:(4):267-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Misch CE. Bone density: a key determinant for clinical success. In: Misch CE, editor. Dental implant prosthetics. Maryland Heights: Mosby; 2005. p. 130-141.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sevimay M, Turhan F. Three-dimensional finite element analysis on the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in implant-supported crown. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93::227-233. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.12.019.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Papavasilion G, Kamposiors P, Bayne SC, Felton DA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress-distribution around single tooth implants as a function of bony support, prosthesis type and loading during function. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76::633-640. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90442-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Atwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges: a major oral disease entity. J Prosthet Dent. 1971 Sep; 26:(3):266-79. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(71)90069-2.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mercier P, Lafontant R. Residual alveolar ridge atrophy: classification and influence of facial morphology. J Prosthet Dent. 1979 Jan; 41:(1):90-100. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90363-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Seibert JS. Reconstruction of deformed, partially edentulous ridges, using full thickness onlay grafts. Part I. Technique and wound healing. Compend Contin Educ Dent (Lawrenceville). 1983 Sep-Oct; 4:(5):437-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Allen EP, Gainza CS, Farthing GG, Newbold DA. Improved technique for localized ridge augmentation. A report of 21 cases. J Periodontol. 1985 Apr; 56:(4):195-9. doi: 10.1902/jop.1985.56.4.195.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988 Aug; 17:(4):232-6. doi: 10.1016/s0901-5027(88)80047-x.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Eufinger H, Gellrich NC, Sandmann D, Dieckmann J. Descriptive and metric classification of jaw atrophy. An evaluation of 104 mandibles and 96 maxillae of dried skulls. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997 Feb; 26:(1):23-8. doi: 10.1016/s0901-5027(97)80841-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Meyer U, Vollmer D, Runte C, Bourauel C, Joos U. Bone loading pattern around implants in average and atrophic edentulous maxillae: a finite-element analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001 Apr; 29:(2):100-5. doi: 10.1054/jcms.2001.0198.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Misch CE, Judy KW. Classification of partially edentulous arches for implant dentistry. Int J Oral Implantol. 1987; 4:(2):7-13.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Al-Nakib LH, Abdullah AO, Abd Al-Kareem SA, Ali SH. An Assessment of Sagittal Condylar Position of TMJ Dysfunction in Centric Occlussion by Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Journal of Baghdad College of Dentistry. 2016; 28:(2):58-62. doi: 10.12816/0028214.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ahmed AA, Bede SY. Accuracy of ridge mapping procedure in determining the alveolar ridge width. Journal of Baghdad College of Dentistry. 2018; 30:(4):24-27. doi: 10.26477/jbcd.v30i4.2551.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ozdemir F, Tozlu M, Germec Cakan D. Quantitative evaluation of alveolar cortical bone density in adults with different vertical facial types using cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod. 2014 Jan; 44:(1):36-43. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.36.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. de Oliveira RC, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF. Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Feb; 105:(2):231-8. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.08.007.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hindi AR, Bede SY. The effect of osseodensification on implant stability and bone density: A prospective observational study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020 May 1; 12:(5):e474-e478. doi: 10.4317/jced.56727.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Noaman AT, Bede SY. The Effect of Bone Density Measured by Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Implant Dimensions on the Stability of Dental Implants. J Craniofac Surg. 2022 Sep 1; 33:(6):e553-e557. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008429.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Branemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. In: Patient selection and preparation. 1st ed. Chicago, Illinois: Quintessence Publishing Company; 1985. p. 199-209.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 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 Mar-Apr; 21:(2):290-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, Yilmaz B, Ersoy AE. Determination of bone quality of 372 implant recipient sites using Hounsfield unit from computerized tomography: a clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008 Dec; 10:(4):238-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00085.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Feb; 12:(1):79-84. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001079.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Almasoud NN, Tanneru N, Marei HF. Alveolar bone density and its clinical implication in the placement of dental implants and orthodontic mini-implants. Saudi Med J. 2016 Jun; 37:(6):684-9. doi: 10.15537/Smj.2016.6.14274.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.uncidc.1
Loading
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2024.uncidc.1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error