Bone quality evaluation: Comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1271-1277

  Valiyaparambi, Jayasankar V ^a   Yamany, Ibrahim ^a   Ortiz, Denise ^a   Shafer, David M ^a   Pendrys, David ^a   Freilich, Martin ^a   Mallya, Sanjay M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cone beam computed tomography; Endosseous implants; Radiographic bone density

Indexed keywords

DENTAL MATERIAL; HYDROXYAPATITE; PHOSPHATE; POTASSIUM DERIVATIVE; POTASSIUM DIHYDROGEN PHOSPHATE;

ARTICLE; BONE DENSITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

BONE DENSITY; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENTAL MATERIALS; DURAPATITE; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PHOSPHATES; POTASSIUM COMPOUNDS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84875304924     PISSN: 08822786     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Truhlar RS, Morris HF, Ochi S, Winkler S. Second-stage failures related to bone quality in patients receiving endosseous dental implants: DICRG interim report no. 7. Implant Dent 1994; 3: 252-255.
2. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albektsson T (eds). Tissue Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence, 1985: 199-209.
3. Martinez H, Davarpanah M, Missika P, Celletti R, Lazzara R. Optimal implant stabilization in low density bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 423-432.
4. Truhlar RS, Orenstein IH, Morris HF, Ochi S. Distribution of bone quality in patients receiving endosseous dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997; 55: 38-45.
5. Angelopoulos C, Aghaloo T. Imaging technology in implant diagnosis. Dent Clin North Am 2011; 55: 141-158.
6. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20: 416-424.
7. 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; 22: 208-212.
8. Beer A, Gahleitner A, Holm A, Tschabitscher M, Homolka P. Correlation of insertion torques with bone mineral density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 616-620.
9. Sanada S, Kawahara K, Yamamoto T, Takashima T. New tissue substitutes representing cortical bone and adipose tissue in quantitative radiology. Phys Med Biol 1999; 44: N107-112.
10. National Institutes of Health. ImageJ (Image Processing and Analysis in Java). http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/. Accessed 11 July 2012.
11. Boden SD, Goodenough DJ, Stockham CD, Jacobs E, Dina T, Allman RM. Precise measurement of vertebral bone density using computed tomography without the use of an external reference phantom. J Digit Imaging 1989; 2: 31-38.
12. Cann CE, Genant HK. Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1980; 4: 493-500.
13. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 323-235.
14. Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 558-562.
15. 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; 18: 224-231.
16. Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: Clinical-histomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999; 10: 1-7.