Morphological Evaluation of Bone by CT to Determine Primary Stability-Clinical Study.
computed tomography value
dental implants
implant stability quotient
primary stability
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jun 2020
08 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
20
04
2020
revised:
02
06
2020
accepted:
02
06
2020
entrez:
12
6
2020
pubmed:
12
6
2020
medline:
12
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Primary stability is an important prognostic factor for dental implant therapy. In the present study, we evaluate the relationship between implant stability evaluation findings by the use of an implant stability quotient (ISQ), an index for primary stability, and a morphological evaluation of bone by preoperative computed tomography (CT). We analyzed 98 patients who underwent implant placement surgery in this retrospective study. For all 247 implants, the correlations of the ISQ value with cortical bone thickness, cortical bone CT value, cancellous bone CT value, insertion torque value, implant diameter, and implant length were examined. 1. Factors affecting ISQ values in all cases: It was revealed that there were significant associations between the cortical bone thickness and cancellous bone CT values with ISQ by multiple regression analysis. 2. It was revealed that there was a significant correlation between cortical bone thickness and cancellous bone CT values with ISQ by multiple regression analysis in the upper jaw. 3. It was indicated that there was a significant association between cortical bone thickness and implant diameter with ISQ by multiple regression analysis in the lower jaw. We concluded that analysis of the correlation of the ISQ value with cortical bone thickness and values obtained in preoperative CT imaging were useful preoperative evaluations for obtaining implant stability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Primary stability is an important prognostic factor for dental implant therapy. In the present study, we evaluate the relationship between implant stability evaluation findings by the use of an implant stability quotient (ISQ), an index for primary stability, and a morphological evaluation of bone by preoperative computed tomography (CT).
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
METHODS
We analyzed 98 patients who underwent implant placement surgery in this retrospective study. For all 247 implants, the correlations of the ISQ value with cortical bone thickness, cortical bone CT value, cancellous bone CT value, insertion torque value, implant diameter, and implant length were examined.
RESULTS
RESULTS
1. Factors affecting ISQ values in all cases: It was revealed that there were significant associations between the cortical bone thickness and cancellous bone CT values with ISQ by multiple regression analysis. 2. It was revealed that there was a significant correlation between cortical bone thickness and cancellous bone CT values with ISQ by multiple regression analysis in the upper jaw. 3. It was indicated that there was a significant association between cortical bone thickness and implant diameter with ISQ by multiple regression analysis in the lower jaw.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We concluded that analysis of the correlation of the ISQ value with cortical bone thickness and values obtained in preoperative CT imaging were useful preoperative evaluations for obtaining implant stability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32521622
pii: ma13112605
doi: 10.3390/ma13112605
pmc: PMC7321591
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2007 Jan-Mar;20(1 Suppl 1):33-6
pubmed: 17897499
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Sep;163(3):693-8
pubmed: 8079870
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Oct;15(5):529-39
pubmed: 15355394
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):305-13
pubmed: 16634503
Physiother Res Int. 2002;7(3):146-56
pubmed: 12426912
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012 Dec;16:169-80
pubmed: 23182386
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25
pubmed: 3527955
J Funct Biomater. 2015 Mar 18;6(1):143-52
pubmed: 25794350
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Oct;15(5):520-8
pubmed: 15355393
Int J Prosthodont. 1998 Sep-Oct;11(5):385-521
pubmed: 9922730
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 May/Jun;32(3):655-660
pubmed: 28494046
J Oral Implantol. 2002;28(1):29-36
pubmed: 12498461
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999 Aug;28(4):266-72
pubmed: 10416893
Implant Dent. 2011 Feb;20(1):40-6
pubmed: 21278526
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990 Winter;5(4):390-400
pubmed: 2094658
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):290-7
pubmed: 16634501
J Adv Prosthodont. 2011 Mar;3(1):10-5
pubmed: 21503187
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 May-Jun;25(3):532-9
pubmed: 20556252
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1993 Jul-Aug;14(4):979-90
pubmed: 8352174
Periodontol 2000. 2008;47:51-66
pubmed: 18412573
J Oral Rehabil. 2006 Dec;33(12):881-8
pubmed: 17168930
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998 Jun;27(3):229-35
pubmed: 9662022
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Apr;17(2):124-33
pubmed: 16584407
Bone. 2005 Dec;37(6):776-80
pubmed: 16154396