Imaging Sci Dent.  2011 Jun;41(2):59-62. 10.5624/isd.2011.41.2.59.

Assessment of the increased calcification of the jaw bone with CT-Scan after dental implant placement

• Yunus B

• KMID: 1449936
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2011.41.2.59

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study was performed to evaluate the changes of jaw bone density around the dental implant after placement using computed tomography scan (CT-Scan).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This retrospective study consisted of 30 patients who had lost 1 posterior tooth in maxilla or mandible and installed dental implant. The patients took CT-Scan before and after implant placement. Hounsfield Unit (HU) was measured around the implants and evaluated the difference of HU before and after implant installation.
RESULTS
The mean HU of jaw bone was 542.436 HU and 764.9 HU before and after implant placement, respectively (p<0.05). The means HUs for male were 632.3 HU and 932.2 HU and those for female 478.2 HU and 645.5 HU before and after implant placement, respectively (p<0.05). Also, the jaw bone with lower density needed longer period for implant procedure and the increased change of HU of jaw bone was less in the cases which needed longer period for osseointegration.
CONCLUSION
CT-Scan could be used to assess the change of bone density around dental implants. Bone density around dental implant was increased after placement. The increased rate of bone density could be determined by the quality of jaw bone before implant placement.

Keyword

Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Dental Implants; Bone Density

MeSH Terms

Bone Density
Dental Implants
Female
Humans
Jaw
Male
Mandible
Maxilla
Retrospective Studies
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Tooth
Dental Implants

Reference

1. Homolka P, Beer A, Birkfellner W, Nowotny R, Gahleitner A, Tschabitscher M, et al. Bone mineral density measurement with dental quantitative CT prior to dental implant placement in cadaver mandibles: pilot study. Radiology. 2002. 224:247–252.

2. Dula K, Mini R, van der Stelt PF, Buser D. The radiographic assessment of implant patients: decision-making criteria. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001. 16:80–89.

3. Frederiksen NL. Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995. 80:540–554.

4. Anil S, Al-Ghamdi HS. A method of gauging dental radiographs during treatment planning for dental implants. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007. 8:82–88.

5. Bhat S, Shetty S, Shenoy KK. Imaging in implantology. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2005. 5:10–13.

6. Almog DM, Torrado E, Moss ME, Meitner SW, LaMar F. Use of imaging guides in preimplant tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002. 93:483–487.

7. Priaminiarti M. Forecast radiometric parameters of the jaw bone through radiographic examination: efforts to improve the diagnostic quality of dental implant services [dissertation]. 2008. Jakarta: University of Indonesia.

8. Rho JY, Hobatho MC, Ashman RB. Relations of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone. Med Eng Phys. 1995. 17:347–355.

9. Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy EA. Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: a retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2008. 8:32.

10. Han TJ, Park KB. Newman MG, Takei HH, Carranza FA, editors. Surgical aspect dental implants. Carranza's clinical periodontology. 2002. 9th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders;898.

11. Nackaerts O, Jacobs R, Pillen M, Engelen L, Gijbels F, Devlin H, et al. Accuracy and precision of a densitometric tool for jaw bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006. 35:244–248.