The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A torque-measuring micromotor provides operator independent measurements marking four different density areas in maxillae

  • Received : 2014.06.11
  • Accepted : 2014.10.07
  • Published : 2015.02.27
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. Bone density at implant placement site is a key factor to obtain the primary stability of the fixture, which, in turn, is a prognostic factor for osseointegration and long-term success of an implant supported rehabilitation. Recently, an implant motor with a bone density measurement probe has been introduced. The aim of the present study was to test the objectiveness of the bone densities registered by the implant motor regardless of the operator performing them. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 3704 bone density measurements, performed by means of the implant motor, were registered by 39 operators at different implant sites during routine activity. Bone density measurements were grouped according to their distribution across the jaws. Specifically, four different areas were distinguished: a pre-antral (between teeth from first right maxillary premolar to first left maxillary premolar) and a sub-antral (more distally) zone in the maxilla, and an interforaminal (between and including teeth from first left mandibular premolar to first right mandibular premolar) and a retroforaminal (more distally) zone in the lower one. A statistical comparison was performed to check the inter-operators variability of the collected data. RESULTS. The device produced consistent and operator-independent bone density values at each tooth position, showing a reliable bone-density measurement. CONCLUSION. The implant motor demonstrated to be a helpful tool to properly plan implant placement and loading irrespective of the operator using it.

Keywords

References

  1. Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:391-401.
  2. Romanos GE. Bone quality and the immediate loading of implants-critical aspects based on literature, research, and clinical experience. Implant Dent 2009;18:203-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181991248
  3. Bahat O, Sullivan RM. Parameters for successful implant integration revisited part I: immediate loading considered in light of the original prerequisites for osseointegration. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:e2-12.
  4. Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, Yilmaz B, Ersoy AE. Determination of bone quality of 372 implant recipient sites using Hounsfield unit from computerized tomography: a clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10:238-44.
  5. Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21: 290-7.
  6. Turkyilmaz I, Tozum TF, Tumer C. Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:267-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x
  7. Valiyaparambil JV, Yamany I, Ortiz D, Shafer DM, Pendrys D, Freilich M, Mallya SM. Bone quality evaluation: comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27: 1271-7.
  8. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:323-35. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/19603304
  9. Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:558-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01896.x
  10. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissueintegrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago; Quintessence; 1985. p. 199-209.
  11. Misch CE. Density of Bone: effects on surgical approach and healing. In: Misch CE, editors. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St. Louis; CV Mosby; 2008. p. 645-67.
  12. Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: clinical-histomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100101.x
  13. Iezzi G, Scarano A, Di Stefano D, Arosio P, Doi K, Ricci L, Piattelli A, Perrotti V. Correlation between the bone density recorded by a computerized implant motor and by a histomorphometric analysis: a preliminary in vitro study on bovine ribs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e35-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12121
  14. Di Stefano DA, Arosio P, Pagnutti S. A possible novel objective intraoperative measurement of maxillary bone density. Minerva Stomatol 2013;62:259-65.
  15. Ekfeldt A, Christiansson U, Eriksson T, Linden U, Lundqvist S, Rundcrantz T, Johansson LA, Nilner K, Billstrom C. A retrospective analysis of factors associated with multiple implant failures in maxillae. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12: 462-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120505.x
  16. Javed F, Romanos GE. The role of primary stability for successful immediate loading of dental implants. A literature review. J Dent 2010;38:612-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.05.013

Cited by

  1. Sinus augmentation and concomitant implant placement in low bone-density sites. A retrospective study on an undersized drilling protocol and primary stability pp.15230899, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12558
  2. The effect of undersizing and tapping on bone to implant contact and implant primary stability: A histomorphometric study on bovine ribs vol.10, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.227
  3. Correlation between Implant Geometry, Bone Density, and the Insertion Torque/Depth Integral: A Study on Bovine Ribs vol.7, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7010025
  4. Distribution of Trabecular Bone Density in the Maxilla and Mandible vol.28, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0000000000000893
  5. Stability of Dental Implants and Thickness of Cortical Bone: Clinical Research and Future Perspectives. A Systematic Review vol.14, pp.23, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14237183