The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Bone Graft on the Correlation between Clinical Bone Quality and CBCT-determined Bone Density: A Pilot Study

Hesham H Abdulkarim, Rong Zeng, Vanessa K Pazdernik, Joan M Davis

Keywords : Allograft, Bone density, Bone quality, CBCT, Hounsfield unit, Xenograft

Citation Information : Abdulkarim HH, Zeng R, Pazdernik VK, Davis JM. Effect of Bone Graft on the Correlation between Clinical Bone Quality and CBCT-determined Bone Density: A Pilot Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (7):756-762.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3133

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: The aim of this pilot study is to explore the possible correlation between radiographic bone density and clinical bone quality in edentulous implant sites with and without a history of bone grafting. Materials and methods: A retrospective evaluation of 273 surgically placed dental implants with adequate preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) between 2017 and 2019. Misch classification was used to assess the bone quality, and CBCT grayscale values, utilizing Hounsfield units (HU), were used for radiographic bone density assessment. Results: Sixty-six patients (mean age, 58 years; 43 [65%] female and 23 [35%] male) with 118 implant sites were included. A total of 38 sites with bone grafts were evaluated. Controlling for location, sites with previous bone graft had softer bone quality (p = 0.003) and greater bone density (p <0.001) compared to sites without previous bone grafts. A significant correlation existed between radiographic bone density and clinical bone quality (p ≤0.01). The magnitude of the relationship increased in the absence of bone graft (p <0.001) and became nonsignificant in sites with previous grafting. In sites with allograft, the relationship was not statistically different than those without bone graft (both p ≥0.07), while it was statistically different in sites with xenograft when sites assumed independent (p = 0.02). Conclusion: CBCT-determined radiographic bone density was correlated to clinical bone quality in the absence of previous bone grafting, while in the presence of previous bone graft, the radiographic bone density of the edentulous sites seemed to be not associated with the clinical bone density, especially in sites with history of xenograft bone grafting. Clinical significance: CBCT could be utilized to predict preoperative clinical bone quality in sites without previous bone grafting. When assessing sites with history of bone grafting, the CBCT should be interpreted with caution, especially if xenografts were used.


PDF Share
  1. Atsumi M, Park SH, Wang HL. Methods used to assess implant stability: current status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22(5):743–754.
  2. Javed F, Ahmed HB, Crespi R, et al. Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: factors of influence and evaluation. Interv Med Appl Sci 2013;5(4):162–167. DOI: 10.1556/IMAS.5.2013.4.3.
  3. Patil R, Bharadwaj D. Is primary stability a predictable parameter for loading implant? J Int Clin Dent Res Org 2016;8(1):84–88. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0754.176264.
  4. Lioubavina-Hack N, Lang NP, Karring T. Significance of primary stability for osseointegration of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(3):244–250. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01201.x.
  5. Cobo-Vázquez C, Reininger D, Molinero-Mourelle P, et al. Effect of the lack of primary stability in the survival of dental implants. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10(1):e14–e19. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54441.
  6. Merheb J, Vercruyssen M, Coucke W, et al. Relationship of implant stability and bone density derived from computerized tomography images. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20(1):50–57. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12579.
  7. Marquezan M, Osório A, Sant'Anna E, et al. Does bone mineral density influence the primary stability of dental implants? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(7):767–774. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02228.x.
  8. Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991;62(1):2–4. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1991.62.1.2.
  9. Goiato MC, dos Santos DM, Santiago JF Jr, et al. Longevity of dental implants in type IV bone: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43(9):1108–1116. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.016.
  10. Higuchi KW, Folmer T, Kultje C. Implant survival rates in partially edentulous patients: a 3-year prospective multicenter study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53(3):264–268. DOI: 10.1016/0278-2391(95)90222-8.
  11. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection, and preparation. In: Tissue-integrated Prosthesis: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago, IL: Quintessence; 1985. p. 199–208.
  12. Misch CE. Divisions of available bone in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Implantol. 1990;7(1):9-17. PMID: 2103123.
  13. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(1):79–84. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001079.x.
  14. Maki K, Okano T, Morohashi T, et al. The application of three-dimensional quantitative computed tomography to the maxillofacial skeleton. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997;26(1):39–44. DOI: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600220. PMID: 9446989.
  15. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Di Carlo S, Pompa G, Barbato E. The accuracy of CBCT in measuring jaws bone density. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012 Oct;16(10):1425–9. PMID: 23104660.
  16. Wang F, Huang W, Wu Y, et al. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography grayscale density in determining bone architecture in the posterior mandible: an in vivo study with microcomputed tomography validation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(5):1074–1079. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5518.
  17. Monje A, Monje F, González-García R, et al. Comparison between microcomputed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography radiologic bone to assess atrophic posterior maxilla density and microarchitecture. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(6):723–728. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12133.
  18. Van Dessel J, Nicolielo LF, Huang Y, Coudyzer W, Salmon B, Lambrichts I, Jacobs R. Accuracy and reliability of different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices for structural analysis of alveolar bone in comparison with multislice CT and micro-CT. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(1):95-105. PMID: 28327698
  19. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, et al. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(1):e1–e7. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12315.
  20. Liu J, Chen HY, DoDo H, et al. Efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography in evaluating bone quality for optimum implant treatment planning. Implant Dent 2017;26(3):405–411. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000542.
  21. Wada M, Suganami T, Sogo M, et al. Can we predict the insertion torque using the bone density around the implant? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;45(2):221–225. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.09.013.
  22. Salimov F, Tatli U, Kürkçü M, et al. Evaluation of relationship between preoperative bone density values derived from cone beam computed tomography and implant stability parameters: a clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(9):1016–1021. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12219.
  23. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, et al. Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(7):832–836. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02203.x.
  24. Mesquita Júnior EJ, Vieta AI, Taba Júnior M, et al. Correlation of radiographic analysis during initial planning and tactile perception during the placement of implants. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;55(1):17–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.08.012.
  25. Lee S, Gantes B, Riggs M, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 3. Bone quality evaluation during osteotomy and implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Mar-Apr;22(2):208–12. PMID: 17465345.
  26. Valiyaparambil JV, Yamany I, Ortiz D, Shafer DM, Pendrys D, Freilich M, Mallya SM. Bone quality evaluation: comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Sep-Oct;27(5):1271–7. PMID: 23057044.
  27. Rokn A, Rasouli Ghahroudi AA, Daneshmonfared M, et al. Tactile sense of the surgeon in determining bone density when placing dental implant. Implant Dent 2014;23(6):697–703. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000173.
  28. Avila-Ortiz G, Elangovan S, Kramer KW, et al. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014;93(10):950–958. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514541127.
  29. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, et al. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;2009(4):CD003607. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003607.
  30. Galindo-Moreno P, de Buitrago JG, Padial-Molina M, et al. Histopathological comparison of healing after maxillary sinus augmentation using xenograft mixed with autogenous bone versus allograft mixed with autogenous bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(2):192–201. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13098.
  31. Carmagnola D, Adriaens P, Berglundh T. Healing of human extraction sockets filled with Bio-Oss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14(2):137–143. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140201.x.
  32. Radi IA, Ibrahim W, Iskandar SMS, et al. Prognosis of dental implants in patients with low bone density: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120(5):668–677. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.019.
  33. Tettamanti L, Andrisani C, Bassi MA, et al. Immediate loading implants: review of the critical aspects. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2017;10(2):129–139. DOI: 10.11138/orl/2017.10.2.129.
  34. Ravidà A, Saleh MHA, Muriel MC, et al. Biological and technical complications of splinted or nonsplinted dental implants: a decision tree for selection. Implant Dent 2018;27(1):89–94. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000721.
  35. Al-Marshood MM, Junker R, Al-Rasheed A, et al. Study of the osseointegration of dental implants placed with an adapted surgical technique. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(7):753–759. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02055.x.
  36. Degidi M, Daprile G, Piattelli A. Influence of underpreparation on primary stability of implants inserted in poor quality bone sites: an in vitro study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73(6):1084–1088. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.01.029.
  37. García-Vives N, Andrés-García R, Rios-Santos V, Fernández-Palacín A, Bullón-Fernández P, Herrero-Climent M, Herrero-Climent F. In vitro evaluation of the type of implant bed preparation with osteotomes in bone type IV and its influence on the stability of two implant systems. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009 Sep 1;14(9):e455-60. PMID: 19718009
  38. Olate S, Lyrio MC, de Moraes M, et al. Influence of diameter and length of implant on early dental implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68(2):414–419. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.10.002.
  39. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The efficacy of various bone augmentation procedures for dental implants: a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Sep-Oct;21(5):696-710. PMID: 17066630.
  40. Stavropoulos A, Kostopoulos L, Nyengaard JR, et al. Deproteinized bovine bone (Bio-Oss) and bioactive glass (Biogran) arrest bone formation when used as an adjunct to guided tissue regeneration (GTR): an experimental study in the rat. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30(7):636–643. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.00093.x.
  41. Stavropoulos A, Kostopoulos L, Nyengaard JR, et al. Fate of bone formed by guided tissue regeneration with or without grafting of Bio-Oss or Biogran. An experimental study in the rat. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31(1):30–39. DOI: 10.1111/j.0303-6979.2004.00434.x.
  42. Araújo M, Linder E, Wennström J, Lindhe J. The influence of Bio-Oss Collagen on healing of an extraction socket: an experimental study in the dog. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008 Apr;28(2):123–35. PMID: 18546808.
  43. Schmitt CM, Doering H, Schmidt T, et al. Histological results after maxillary sinus augmentation with Straumann® BoneCeramic, Bio-Oss®, Puros®, and autologous bone. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(5):576–585. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02431.x.
  44. Froum SJ, Wallace SS, Elian N, et al. Comparison of mineralized cancellous bone allograft (Puros) and anorganic bovine bone matrix (Bio-Oss) for sinus augmentation: histomorphometry at 26 to 32 weeks after grafting. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26(6):543–551.
  45. Stumbras A, Kuliesius P, Januzis G, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction using different bone graft materials and autologous platelet concentrates: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2019;10(1):e2. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10102.
  46. Sakka S, Coulthard P. Bone quality: a reality for the process of osseointegration. Implant Dent 2009;18(6):480–485. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bb840d.
  47. Kim YJ, Henkin J. Micro-computed tomography assessment of human alveolar bone: bone density and three-dimensional micro-architecture. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17(2):307–313. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12109.
  48. MacMillan HA. Structural characteristics of the alveolar process. Int J Orthodont 1926;12:722–732.
  49. Parfitt GJ. An investigation of the normal variations in alveolar bone trabeculation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1962;15:1453–1463. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(62)90409-7.
  50. Wakimoto M, Matsumura T, Ueno T, et al. Bone quality and quantity of the anterior maxillary trabecular bone in dental implant sites. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(11):1314–1319. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02347.x.
  51. Kamigaki Y, Sato I, Yosue T. Histological and radiographic study of human edentulous and dentulous maxilla. Anat Sci Int 2017;92(4):470–482. DOI: 10.1007/s12565-016-0344-z.
  52. Di Stefano DA, Arosio P, Pagnutti S, et al. Distribution of Trabecular Bone Density in the Maxilla and Mandible. Implant Dent 2019;28(4):340–348. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000893.
  53. Ohiomoba H, Sonis A, Yansane A, et al. Quantitative evaluation of maxillary alveolar cortical bone thickness and density using computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151(1):82–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.05.015.
  54. Choël L, Duboeuf F, Bourgeois D, et al. Trabecular alveolar bone in the human mandible: a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95(3):364–370. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2003.119.
  55. Shahlaie M, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 1. Quantitative computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 Mar-Apr;18(2):224–31. PMID: 12705300.
  56. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, Yamada JM, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 May-Jun;20(3):416–24. PMID: 15973953.
  57. Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: clinical-histomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100101.x.
  58. Danesh-Sani SA, Engebretson SP, Janal MN. Histomorphometric results of different grafting materials and effect of healing time on bone maturation after sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontal Res 2017;52(3):301–312. DOI: 10.1111/jre.12402.
  59. Klijn RJ, Meijer GJ, Bronkhorst EM, et al. A meta-analysis of histomorphometric results and graft healing time of various biomaterials compared to autologous bone used as sinus floor augmentation material in humans. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010;16(5):493–507. DOI: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2010.0035.
  60. Ribeiro-Rotta RF, Lindh C, Pereira AC, et al. Ambiguity in bone tissue characteristics as presented in studies on dental implant planning and placement: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(8):789–801. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02041.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.