Evaluation of Alveolar Bone on Dental Implant Treatment using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objective: To observe the outcomes of dental implant treatment based on the evaluation of bone conditions using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods: A total of 31 dental implants were collected for the present study. Subsequently, mesial and distal bone losses were examined, while buccal and lingual bone thickness were measured at 7 levels. Evaluation and interpretation of CBCT results was performed by 3 independent examiners. Results: The average of mesial bone loss was 1.08 mm and 1.36 mm on distal bone. Every dental implant had lingual/palatal bone on level 1 to 3, only 1 (6.5%) didn't have bone on level 4, 3 implants (9.7%) had no bone at level 5 and 6, and 22 implants (74.2%) had no bone at level 7/implant platform. There were 8 implants (25.8%) didn't have buccal bone at level 7, only 1 implant (3.2%) didn't have buccal bone at level 2,4,5 and 6, and there were 2 implants (6.5%) had no buccal bone on level 3. Dehiscence / fenestration can be seen on 90% of the implant subjects. Conclusion: These bone loss condition could be consequence of several factors such as infection, diagnosis, treatment plan, and operator's surgery skills. The implants that placed without CBCT could lead to operator miscalculation on bone condition, therefore in moderate to advanced cases, the use of CBCT should be mandatory for treatment plan.

Marginal Bone Level and Bone Quality Evaluation Using CBCT after Functional Loading around Dental Implant in the Population of Bhubaneswar, Odisha: A Longitudinal Study

“…When the pre-implant Crestal height was compared to the Crestal height post-implant, it was seen that a statistically significant correlation (correlation between pre and post implant placement crestal height) existed between the two time-intervals (p<0.0001*) in that the mean crestal height after implant placement was higher than the mean crestal height before implant placement. This finding was in accordance to the study conducted by Bergkvist et al [14] and contrary to the findings of the study conducted by Dwingadi et al [1] where mesial bone loss of 1.08 mm and distal bone loss of 1.36mm was noted.…”

“…For the bone density evaluation, comparing the mean values of pre-and post-implant bone mineral density revealed that a statistically significant correlation existed between the two time-intervals (p <0.0001*; correlation coefficient = 0.977) in that the mean bone density before implant placement was higher than the mean bone density after implant placement. This finding was in accordance to the study conducted by Youssef et al [2] (mean bone density value was 827.96 ± 206.85 immediately postoperatively, then increased to 890.67 ± 138 & 1018.0 ± 149.79 on the 3 rd and 6th months respectively after implant placement, there was a statistical significant increase in bone density) and contrary to the findings of the study conducted by Dwingadi et al [1], and Bergkvist et al [14].…”

“…In this context, dental implants have really taken over the rest of the conventional methods. Not only do they provide a more efficient solution, but also give a longterm survival rate [1].…”

“…However, there is very limited literature available comparing the alveolar bone quality pre-and post-implant placement. In the present study, we aim to evaluate the bone density and the height and width around dental implants and compare it to that of the edentulous space before placing the implant [1][2][3][4].…”

Comparison of marginal bone loss in mandibular overdentures supported by two solitary versus splinted mini-implants

“…Comparison between group I and Group II using independent t-test showed no significant difference at six months and 12 months in the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sites (p < 0.05) (Table 2). early diagnosis of bone loss and the correction of current implant problems before further deterioration occurs, with more accuracy than conventional radiographs [28] . Conventional intra-oral radiographs show interproximal alveolar bone levels, which suffers from anatomical superposition and geometric distortion.…”