Are the bone density measurements around dental implants varied with different angles of CBCT view?

• Autorzy: Estephan May Fadheel

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/pjmpe-2025-0015

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: To obtain a precise picture and an accurate clinical evaluation post-dental implantation. Accurate testing of bone density is essential. Various angles may yield disparate attenuation readings, thereby causing inconsistencies in the perceived density of bone surrounding the implanted tooth. This study examines bone density measures in Hounsfield units (HU) surrounding dental implants to determine the impact of varying cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image angle measurements. The study also examined the influence of age, gender, and tooth placement on measurements taken from various angles. Materials and methods: The sample comprised thirteen patients, eight females (61.54%) and five males (38.46%), aged between 18 and 60 years, with a mean age of 48.53 ± 12.97 years. A total of 38 implant CBCT scans were collected from thirteen patients; 24 (63.16%) scans were conducted on females and 14 (36.84%) on men. The bone density surrounding dental implants has been assessed at various approximate angles, specifically 0 and 90 degrees (anticlockwise), with the filter disabled, utilizing CBCT images. Furthermore, the influence of age, gender, and tooth implant location on bone density measurements was considered. OnDemand software assisted in conducting the measurement. Results: The t-test was employed since it was presumed that data distribution was normal. Measurements of bone density taken at various angles with the filter off showed no substantial difference (p= 0.58). There was no discernible variation in the measurements of body density, even after accounting for a multitude of parameters such as gender, age, and the installation of dental implants. Conclusion: No differences exist in bone density measurements at varying angles. Even after dividing the participants into groups to investigate the effects of age, gender, and tooth position, this remains the case. Further research is necessary.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

bone density; dental implant; angle; CBCT

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Fizyki Medycznej
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering
• Rocznik: 2025
• Tom: Vol. 31, Iss. 2
• Strony: 141--145
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 34 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Estephan May Fadheel

• Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, Al-Nahrain University, Al-Kadhimyia - Str. 60, Baghdad, Iraq

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5395-1729

Bibliografia

• 1. Jurić B, Matijaš T. The role of CBCT in the field of dental implantology. Radiol vjesn (Online). 2023;47(1):16-27. doi:10.55378/rv.47.1.2
• 2. Jain A, Shil M, Sreepradha C, Rai S, Kaur I, Banka A. A Review on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and its Application in Dentistry. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. 2023;16(Suppl 1):S38-S40. doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_741_23
• 3. Lechner J, Zimmermann B, Schmidt M, von Baehr V. Ultrasound Sonography to Detect Focal Osteoporotic Jawbone Marrow Defects: Clinical Comparative Study with Corresponding Hounsfield Units and RANTES/CCL5 Expression CCIDE. 2020;Volume 12:205-216. doi:10.2147/ccide.s247345
• 4. Apostolopoulou A. In vivo measurement of mandibular bone mineral density in normal dental subjects by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Bone. 1996;19(3):130S. doi:10.1016/8756-3282(96)89261-1
• 5. Ito Y, Fujita H, Kanou M, et al. Rapid and easy histological evaluation of alveolar human bone quality at dental implant sites using a nondecalcified frozen cryofilm section technique: A technical report. Implant Dentistry, 2015. 24(4): p. 477-479. doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000272
• 6. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clinical Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(1):79-84. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001079.x
• 7. Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, et al. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2006;21(2):290-207.
• 8. Turkyilmaz I, Tumer C, Ozbek EN, Tözüm TF. Relations between the bone density values from computerized tomography, and implant stability parameters: a clinical study of 230 regular platform implants. J Clinic Periodontology. 2007;34(8):716-722. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2007.01112.x
• 9. de Oliveira RCG, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF. Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2008;105(2):231-238. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.08.007
• 10. Fuh LJ, Huang HL, Chen CS, et al. Variations in bone density at dental implant sites in different regions of the jawbone. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2010;37(5):346-351. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02061.x
• 11. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the Head and Neck, Part 2: Clinical Applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(7):1285-1292. doi:10.3174/ajnr.a1654
• 12. Jaju P, Jaju S. Clinical utility of dental cone-beam computed tomography: current perspectives. CCIDE. Published online April 2014:29. doi:10.2147/ccide.s41621
• 13. Alshomrani F. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)-Based Diagnosis of Dental Bone Defects. Diagnostics. 2024;14(13):1404. doi:10.3390/diagnostics14131404
• 14. Akyalcin S, Schaefer JS, English JD, Stephens CR, Winkelmann S. A cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of buccal bone thickness following maxillary expansion. Imaging Sci Dent. 2013;43(2):85. doi:10.5624/isd.2013.43.2.85
• 15. Roemer FW, Engelke K, Li L, Laredo JD, Guermazi A. MRI underestimates presence and size of knee osteophytes using CT as a reference standard. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2023;31(5):656-668. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2023.01.575
• 16. Hsu JT, Chang HW, Huang HL, Yu JH, Li YF, Tu MG. Bone density changes around teeth during orthodontic treatment. Clin Oral Invest. 2010;15(4):511-519. doi:10.1007/s00784-010-0410-1
• 17. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, et al, Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2005;20(3):416-424.
• 18. Katsumata A, Hirukawa A, Okumura S, et al. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2009;107(3):420-425. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.05.049
• 19. Lee S, Gantes B, Riggs M, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 3. Bone quality evaluation during osteotomy and implant placement. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2007;22(2):208-212.
• 20. Campos MJ da S, de Albuquerque EG, Pinto BCH, et al. The role of orthodontic tooth movement in bone and root mineral density: A study of patients submitted and not submitted to orthodontic treatment. Med Sci Monit. 2012;18(12):CR752-CR757. doi:10.12659/msm.883604
• 21. Salimov F, Tatli U, Kürkçü M, Akoğlan M, Öztunç H, Kurtoğlu C. Evaluation of relationship between preoperative bone density values derived from cone beam computed tomography and implant stability parameters: a clinical study. Clinical Oral Implants Res. 2013;25(9):1016-1021. doi:10.1111/clr.12219
• 22. Alves LD. Angled dental implants: implications for clinical practice and biomechanical considerations. ISJM. 2024;3(1). doi:10.56238/isevmjv3n1-026
• 23. Fakhar HB, Abbaszadeh A. Effect of mandibular plane angle on image dimensions in linear tomography. Journal of Dental Medicine. 2011;24(1):42-49.
• 24. Lukas C. Modeling the influence of bone mineralization and remodeling on the structure of bone. Published online December 20, 2012. doi:10.18452/16648
• 25. Dolgalev AA, Danaev AB, Yusupov RD, Hossain SJ, Gabrielyan RG, Zolotaev KE. Objective assessment of measurement error in significant cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. Medicinskij alfavit. 2022;(7):65-68. doi:10.33667/2078-5631-2022-7-65-68
• 26. Petrikowski CG, Pharoah MJ, Schmitt A. Presurgical radiographic assessment for implants. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1989;61(1):59-64. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(89)90110-8
• 27. Genisa M, Ahmad Rajion Z, Mohamad D, Pohchi A, Abdul Kadir MR, Shuib S. Effect of Different Angle Scanning on Density Estimation based on Hounsfield Unit on CT and CBCT. JSM. 2015;44(9):1331-1337. doi:10.17576/jsm-2015-4409-16
• 28. Hassan TAL, Mohammed HB. Effect of Implant Surface Modification on Bone Mineral Density and Survival Rate in the Maxilla After a Short Period Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2021;33(1):e49-e52. doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000007908
• 29. Silva IM de CC, Freitas DQ de, Ambrosano GMB, Bóscolo FN, Almeida SM. Bone density: comparative evaluation of Hounsfield units in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography. Braz oral res. 2012;26(6):550-556. doi:10.1590/s1806-83242012000600011
• 30. Servais JA, Gaalaas L, Lunos S, Beiraghi S, Larson BE, Leon-Salazar V. Alternative cone-beam computed tomography method for the analysis of bone density around impacted maxillary canines. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2018;154(3):442-449. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.01.008
• 31. Carr J, Pedagandham SP, Giugni A, et al. Bone mineral density in osseointegration implant surgery: A review of current studies (Review). Biomed Rep. 2024;21(2). doi:10.3892/br.2024.1809
• 32. Lerebours C, Weinkamer R, Roschger A, Buenzli PR. Mineral density differences between femoral cortical bone and trabecular bone are not explained by turnover rate alone. Bone Reports. 2020;13:100731. doi:10.1016/j.bonr.2020.100731
• 33. Liu J, Chen HY, DoDo H, et al. Efficacy of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Evaluating Bone Quality for Optimum Implant Treatment Planning. Implant Dentistry. 2017;26(3):405-411. doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000542
• 34. Morar L, Băciuț G, Băciuț M, et al. Analysis of CBCT Bone Density Using the Hounsfield Scale. Prosthesis. 2022;4(3):414-423. doi:10.3390/prosthe-sis4030033