Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 13 Feb 2024

Low Bone Density Predictability of CBCT and Its Relation to Primary Stability of Tapered Implant Design: A Pilot Study

DDS, MSD,
DDS, PhD,
DDS, PhD,
DDS, PhD,
DDS, PhD, and
DDS, PhD
Page Range: 556 – 563
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00159
Save
Download PDF

Research regarding bone density assessment using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in low bone density regions is sparse. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the predictability of CBCT for low bone density regions and its correlations with primary implant stability when placing tapered design implants with a stepped osteotomy. Eighteen porcine mandibular condyles were used as simulated low bone density regions. Hounsfield units (HU), obtained via multislice computed tomography, and gray values (GVs), obtained via CBCT, were measured 3 times at 1-month intervals. The maximum implant insertion torque (MIT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were recorded as the taper design implants were placed using a stepped osteotomy. Hounsfield units and GV were measured as 335.05–803.07 and 389.98–906.40, respectively. For repeated measurements of HU and GV, the intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.989 and 0.980; the corresponding value for mean HU and GV was 0.768. Bland-Altman plots showed a mean difference between HU and GV of −78.15. Pearson correlation coefficients revealed a strong correlation between HU and GV (r = 0.91, P < .01). The mean ± SD values for MIT and ISQ were 36.44 ± 6.64 Ncm and 80.85 ± 2.03, respectively, but no statistically significant correlations were found with GV and HU. Within the study’s limitations, GV showed similar bone density estimation compared with HU in soft bones. Tapered implant placement with a stepped osteotomy achieved stable primary implant stability in soft bones. However, these in vitro results need to be approved in further clinical studies.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Depiction of the specimens evaluated in the current study. (a) and (b) Porcine mandibular condylar specimens. Yellow arrows indicate each of the 4 lead foil indicators on every side of the resin mount. The intersection point created by connecting the 4 lead foil indicators was determined as the target area. (c) Specimens in water container during multislice computed tomography scan. (d) Measurement of bone density values on the planned implant site. The site was determined by finding an intersection area of the 4 lead foil indicators (yellow arrows) on the cross-sectional image.


Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Osteotomy for the tapered implant. (a) Drill sequence for normal bones was used (red box). (b) Relative diameter comparison along the long axis between the last drill of the drill sequence and fixture.


Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Data trends within the current study. The data are reordered by ascending order of HU. The x-axis represents the specimen number presented in Table 1. (a) HU and GV. (b) MIT and ISQ. HU, Hounsfield units; GV, gray value; MIT, maximum implant insertion torque; ISQ, implant stability quotient.


Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Comparison of HU and GV measurements. (a) Bland-Altmann plot between HU and GV. (b) The shaded area represents the CI of the mean difference. HU, Hounsfield units; GV, gray value.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: wondgi@gmail.com
  • Download PDF