Citation Information :
Das A, Vijayakumar DB, Sathe S, Sapri AM, Thomas PA, Kappiamkunnath S, Singh PK. Comparative Assessment of Three Different Alveolar Ridge Dimension Measurement Methods before Implant Placement: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (9):651-654.
Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare the three various techniques for measuring the alveolar ridge's dimensions prior to implant insertion.
Materials and methods: For this study, a total of 36 participants were chosen. To prepare a surgical stent, a study model was created from an alginate impression. A first point (reference point) was marked on the crest of the ridge in relation to the adjacent teeth. Then, one point (point 1) and another point (point 2) were marked at distances of 3 and 6 mm, respectively, from the reference point. Based on the procedure for measuring the size of the alveolar ridge, the study was divided into the following groups. Group I: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurement method; Group II: Ridge mapping measurement method; Group III: Direct caliper measurements method. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the mean and standard deviation (SD). The Student's unpaired t-test was utilized for the statistical analysis. The 5% level of significance was used.
Results: There was no significant difference found between CBCT with ridge mapping and direct caliper measurements. However, on comparison of ridge mapping and direct caliper measurements technique, at point 1, the ridge mapping was 3.88 ± 0.12 and the direct caliper measurement was 3.62 ± 0.08. At point 2, the ridge mapping was 6.58 ± 0.06 and the direct caliper measurement was 6.32 ± 0.04. There was a statistically significant difference found between these two measurement methods.
Conclusion: Within the limitation, the current study came to the conclusion that when CBCT and ridge mapping measurements were individually compared with the gold standard—the surgical open method, CBCT—demonstrated to be a highly specific and sensitive method for detecting the residual alveolar ridge width in the treatment planning of dental implants.
Clinical significance: Evaluation of alveolar bone is necessary during treatment planning for dental implant placement. Using simply panoramic and/or periapical radiographs to evaluate the bone may not be sufficient because it only provides two-dimensional information regarding the implant locations. Therefore, for better implant placement, three-dimensional information of the implant site, such as CBCT and ridge mapping technique, should be assessed.
Karla D, Jain G, Deoghare A, et al. Role of imaging in dental implants. J Oral Med Radiol 2010;22(1):34–38. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals- 10011-1007.
Chowdhary R, Chandraker N. Simple diagnostic method to assess the available bone for immediate implant placement in an extracted socket. J Oral Implantol 2011;37(4):473–476.
Luk LC, Pow EH, Li TK, et al. Comparison of ridge mapping and cone–beam computed tomography for planning dental implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(1):70–74. PMID: 21365040.
Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, et al. Cone–beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: Recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health 2018;18(1):88. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5.
Bousquet F, Bousquet P, Vazquez L. Transtomography for implant placement guidance in non-invasive surgical procedures Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36(4):229–233. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/91082519.
Allen F, Smith DG. An assessment of the accuracy of ridgemapping in planning implant therapy for the anterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000:11(1):34–38. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011001034.x.
Ahmed AA, Bede SY. The accuracy of ridge mapping procedure in determining the alveolar ridge width. J Baghdad Coll Dent 2018;15;30(4):24–27. DOI: 10.12816/0052762.
Frederiksen NL. Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;80:540–554. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(05)80153-2.
Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: A position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89(5):630–637. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2000.106336.
Chen LC, Lundgren T, Hallström H, et al. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. J Periodontol 2008;79(3):401–405. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2008.070021.
Castro-Ruiz CT, Noriega J, Guerrero ME. Validity of ridge mapping and computed tomography in dental implant therapy. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2015;19(3):290–293. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.154189.
Abdel–Wahed NA, Hamdy RM, Abdel–Latif ZA. Measurements of jaw bones for implant site assessment using cone–beam computed tomography: Interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Egypt J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;3(2):62–69. DOI: 10.1097/01.OMX.000041 8694.73046.c1.
Wilson DJ. Ridge mapping for determination of alveolar ridge width. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4(1):41–43. PMID: 2599580.
Traxler M, Ulm C, Solar P, et al. Sonographic measurement versus mapping for determination of residual ridge width. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(3):358–361. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90246-7.
Perez LA, Brooks SL, Wang HL, et al. Comparison of linear tomography and direct ridge mapping for the determination of edentulous ridge dimensions in human cadavers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99(6):748–754. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004. 10.023.
Goulet SV, Fortin T, Thierry A. Accuracy of linear measurement provided by cone–beam computed tomography to assess bone quantity in the posterior maxilla: A human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10(4):226–230. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00083.x.
