Correlation between preoperative bone quality and primer stability for mandibular posterior implants

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 2 - 9, 26.01.2024

Sara Samur Ergüven Elif Yıldızer Aydın Ozkan Zeynep Sena Şahin Saliha Kübra Sarı Fatih Peker

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1363093

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to investigate preoperative bone quality obtained from the Hounsfield unit and fractal analysis scores in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) sections and compare this value with primer stability derived from resonance frequency analysis scores soon after placement of implants in the mandibular posterior region.
Material and Method: A total of 36 implant regions were examined retrospectively. Primary outcome variables include the Hounsfield unit, fractal analysis, and resonance frequency analysis scores soon after implant placement. Hounsfield unit and fractal analysis scores were calculated on the preoperative CBCT.
Results: The mean Hounsfield unit, fractal analysis and resonance frequency analysis scores of all implants were 76.44, 0.65 and 67.44, respectively. No statistically significant correlation was found between the Hounsfield unit, fractal analysis and resonance frequency analysis scores (p>0.05). Resonance frequency analysis scores (p=0.002) and Hounsfield unit scores (p=0.050) were significantly superior in males. Age was found to be related to resonance frequency analysis scores (r=0.445, p=0.007).
Conclusion: The preoperative bone quality of alveolar bone measured from cone beam computed tomography by Hounsfield unit or fractal analysis may be insufficient to determine initial implant stability. Further studies are needed to investigate parameters related to the prediction of implant stability.

Keywords

Bone quality, cone-beam computed tomography, dental implants, fractal analysis, hounsfield unit, resonance frequency analysis

Ethical Statement

The present study was approved by the University of Health Sciences/Gülhane Scientific Research Ethics Committee (registration number 2022/226).

Mandibulada posterior bölgeye uygulanan implantlarda preoperatif kemik kalitesi ve primer stabilite arasındaki korelasyon

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada mandibulada arka bölgeye uygulanmış implant bölgelerinde preoperatif konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) kesitlerinden elde edilmiş Hounsfield ünit ve Fraktal analiz skorlarının preoperatif kemik kalitesi anlamında değerlendirilmesi ve bu skorların implant yerleşiminden hemen sonra belirlenen rezonans frekans analizi değerleri ile karşılaştırılması amaçlanmaktadır.
Gereç ve yöntem: Toplamda 36 implant bölgesi retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Temel sonuç değişkenleri Hounsfield ünit, fraktal analiz ve rezonans frekans analizi skorları olarak belirlenmiştir. Hounsfield ünit ve fraktal analiz skorları preoperatif KIBT kesitleri üzerinde hesaplanmıştır.
Bulgular: Ortalama Hounsfield ünit, fraktal analiz ve rezonans frekans analizi skorları sırasıyla; 76.44, 0.65 and 67.44 olarak belirlenmiştir. Hounsfield ünit, fraktal analiz ve rezonans frekans analizi skorları arasında anlamlı istatistiksel kolerasyon saptanmamıştır. (p>0.05). Rezonans frekans analizi (p=0.002) ve Hounsfield ünit (p=0.050) skorları erkeklerde anlamlı düzeyde yüksek belirlenmiştir. Yaş, rezonans frekans analizi skorları ile ilişkili olarak belirlenmiştir (r=0.445, p=0.007).
Sonuç: Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi üzerinde Hounsfield ünit veya fraktal analiz aracılığıyla ölçülen alveolar kemik bölgesindeki preoperatif kemik kalitesi değerlendirmesi başlangıç implant stabilitesinin belirlenmesinde yeterli bir parametre olmayabilir. İmplant stabilitesinin tahminine yönelik ilişkili parametrelerin değerlendirildiği ileri çalışmalara gereksinim vardır.

Keywords

Dental implant, fraktal analiz, hounsfield ünit, kemik kalitesi, konik ışınlı bilgisiyarlı tomografi, rezonans frekans analizi

References

• Referans1. Elani HW, Starr JR, Da Silva JD, Gallucci GO. Trends in dental ımplant use in the U.S., 1999-2016, and projections to 2026. J Dent Res 2018;97:1424-30.
• Referans2. Winitsky N, Olgart K, Jemt T, Smedberg JI. A retro-prospective long-term follow-up of Brånemark single implants in the anterior maxilla in young adults. Part 1: Clinical and radiographic parameters. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:937-44.
• Referans3. Fuh LJ, Huang HL, Chen CS, Fu KL, Shen YW, Tu MG, Shen WC, Hsu JT. Variations in bone density at dental implant sites in different regions of the jawbone. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:346-51.
• Referans4. Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, Kultje C. Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:220-30.
• Referans5. Ivanova V, Chenchev I, Zlatev S, Mijiritsky E. Correlation between primary, secondary stability, bone density, percentage of vital bone formation and ımplant size. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:6994.
• Referans6. Farré-Pagés N, Augé-Castro ML, Alaejos-Algarra F, Mareque- Bueno J, Ferrés-Padró E, Hernández-Alfaro F. Relation between bone density and primary implant stability. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:e62-7.
• Referans7. de Elío Oliveros J, Del Canto Díaz A, Del Canto Díaz M, Orea CJ, Del Canto Pingarrón M, Calvo JS. Alveolar Bone Density and Width Affect Primary Implant Stability. J Oral Implantol 2020;46:389-95.
• Referans8. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. Branemark, Zarb, Albrektsson, editors. Tissue-integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1985. p.199-209.
• Referans9. Misch CE. Bone character: second vital implant criterion. Dent Today 1988;7:39–40.
• Referans10. Misch CE. Rationale for dental implants. Misch CE editor. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St.Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p. 38-67.
• Referans11. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing and progressive bone loading. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;6:23–31.
• Referans12. Fuster-Torres MÁ, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Relationships between bone density values from cone beam computed tomography, maximum insertion torque, and resonance frequency analysis at implant placement: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1051-6.
• Referans13. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:832-6.
• Referans14. Kato CN, Barra SG, Tavares NP, Amaral TM, Brasileiro CB, Mesquita RA, Abreu LG. Use of fractal analysis in dental images: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2020;49:20180457.
• Referans15. Zeytinoğlu M, İlhan B, Dündar N, Boyacioğlu H. Fractal analysis for the assessment of trabecular peri-implant alveolar bone using panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:519-24.
• Referans16. Hayek E, Aoun G, Geha H, Nasseh I. Image-based bone density classification using fractal dimensions and histological analysis of ımplant recipient site. Acta Inform Med 2020;28:272-7.
• Referans17. Magat G, Ozcan Sener S. Evaluation of trabecular pattern of mandible using fractal dimension, bone area fraction, and gray scale value: comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography. Oral Radiol 2019;35:35-42.
• Referans18. Mishra S, Kumar M, Mishra L, Mohanty R, Nayak R, Das AC, Mishra S, Panda S, Lapinska B. Fractal dimension as a tool for assessment of dental ımplant stability-a scoping review. J Clin Med 2022;11:4051.
• Referans19. Kim JH, Lim YJ, Kim B, Lee J. How do parameters of ımplant primary stability correspond with ct-evaluated bone quality in the posterior maxilla? A Correlation Analysis. Materials (Basel) 2021;14:270.
• Referans20. White SC, Rudolph DJ. Alterations of the trabecular pattern of the jaws in patients with osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:628-35.
• Referans21. Salimov F, Tatli U, Kürkçü M, Akoğlan M, Oztunç H, Kurtoğlu C. 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;25:1016-21.
• Referans22. Al-Jamal MFJ, Al-Jumaily HA. Can the bone density estimated by CBCT predict the primary stability of dental ımplants? A New Measurement Protocol. J Craniofac Surg 2021; 32:e171-4.
• Referans23. Gülec M., Taşsöker M, Ozcan S. Tıpta ve diş hekimliğinde fraktal analiz. EU Dishek Fak Derg 2019;40:17-31.
• Referans24. Hayek E, Aoun G, Bassit R, Nasseh I. Correlating radiographic fractal analysis at implant recipient sites with primary implant stability: an in vivo preliminary study. Cureus 2020;12:e6539.
• Referans25. Veltri M, Balleri P, Ferrari M. Damping factor for monitoring the bone interface at dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:738-42.
• Referans26. Gaalaas L , Henn L, Gaillard PR, Ahmad M, Islam MS. Analysis of trabecular bone using site-specific fractal values calculated from cone beam CT images. Oral Radiol 2014;30:179–85.
• Referans27. Soylu E, Coşgunarslan A, Çelebi S, Soydan D, Demirbaş AE, Demir O. Fractal analysis as a useful predictor for determining osseointegration of dental implant? A retrospective study. Int J Implant Dent 2021;7:14.
• Referans28. Öztürk K, Kış HC. Peri-implant bone microstructural analysis and comparison of resonance frequency analysis before prosthetic placement: a retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26:4967-75.
• Referans29. González-Martín O, Lee EA, Veltri M. CBCT fractal dimension changes at the apex of immediate implants placed using undersized drilling. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:954-7.
• Referans30. Magat G, Oncu E, Ozcan S, Orhan K. Comparison of conebeam computed tomography and digital panoramic radiography for detecting peri-implant alveolar bone changes using trabecular micro-structure analysis. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022;48:41-9.