Ambiguity in bone tissue characteristics as presented in studies on dental implant planning and placement: a systematic review.

Department of Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil.
Clinical Oral Implants Research (Impact Factor: 3.43). 12/2010; 22(8):789-801. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02041.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To survey definitions of bone tissue characteristics and methods of assessing them in studies of dental implant planning and placement.
Three databases were searched using specified indexing terms. Three reviewers selected from the titles and retrieved abstracts in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Descriptions of bone tissue characteristics (bone quality, density and quantity) used before or during dental implant placement were searched for and categorized.
The search yielded 488 titles. One hundred and fort-nine publications were selected and read in full text. One hundred and eight were considered relevant. There were many different definitions and classification systems for bone tissue characteristics and examination protocols. Approximately two-third of the included publications reported the Lekholm & Zarb classification system for bone quality and quantity. However, only four studies implemented the Lekholm & Zarb system as originally proposed. A few publications described bone quality in accordance with the Misch or Trisi and Rao classifications systems. Assessment methods were often described only briefly (or not at all in one-fifth of the publications). Only one study presented the diagnostic accuracy of the assessment method, while only two presented observer performance.
The differing definitions and classification systems applied to dental implant planning and placement make it impossible to compare the results of various studies, particularly with respect to whether bone quality or quantity affect treatment outcomes. A consistent classification system for bone tissue characteristics is needed, as well as an appropriate description of bone tissue assessment methods, their diagnostic accuracy and observer performance.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The term bone quality is often used in a dentomaxillofacial context, for example in implant planning, as bone density and bone structure have been linked to primary implant success. This research aimed to investigate the performance of adaptive thresholding of trabecular bone in cone beam CT (CBCT) images. The segmentation quality was assessed for different imaging devices and upper and lower jaws. Four jaws were scanned with eight CBCT scanners and one micro-CT device. Images of the jaws were spatially aligned with the micro-CT images. Two volumes of interest for each jaw were manually delineated. Trabecular bone in the volumes of interest in the micro-CT images was segmented so that the micro-CT images could serve as high-resolution ground truth images. The volumes of interest in the CBCT images were segmented using both global and adaptive thresholding. Segmentation was significantly better for the lower jaw than for the upper jaw. Differences in performance between the scanners were significant for both jaws. Adaptive thresholding performed significantly better in segmenting the bone structure out of CBCT images. When assessing jaw bone structure, the observer should always choose adaptive thresholding. It remains a challenge to identify the optimal threshold selection for the structural assessment of jaw bone.
    Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 03/2014; · 3.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To suggest a standardized method to assess the variation in voxel value distribution in patient-simulated CBCT datasets, and the effect of time between exposures (TBE). Additionally, a measurement of reproducibility, AMORe (Aarhus Measurement of Reproducibility) is introduced, which could be used for quality assurance purposes. Methods: Six CBCT units were tested (Cranex-3D/CRAN; Scanora-3D/SCAN; NewTom-5G/NEW5; i-CAT/ICAT; 3D-Accuitomo FPD80/ACCU; NewTom-VG/NEWV). Two sets of volumetric data of a wax-imbedded dry human skull (containing a titanium implant) were acquired by each CBCT unit at two sessions on separate days. Each session consisted of 21 exposures: one "initial" followed by a 30-minute interval (initial dataset), 10 acquired with 30-minute TBE (datasets 1 to 10), and 10 acquired with 15-minute TBE (datasets 11 to 20). CBCT data were exported as DICOM files and converted to text files containing x-, y-, and z-position and grey shade for each voxel. Subtractions were performed voxel-by-voxel in two set-ups: 1)between two consecutive datasets, and 2)between any subsequent dataset and dataset 1. The mean grey shade variation for each voxel was calculated for each unit/session. Results: The largest mean grey shade variation was found in the subtraction set-up 2 (27-447 shades-of-grey, depending on the unit). Considering subtraction set-up 1, the highest variation was seen for NEW5, between datasets 1 and the initial. Conclusion: Discrepancies in voxel value distribution were found comparing the initial exam of the day with the subsequent exams. TBE had no predictable effect on the variation of CBCT-derived voxel values. AMORe ranged between 0 and 64.
    Dento-maxillo-facial radiology. Supplement 10/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of the most challenging treatment planning decisions in restorative dentistry is the retention of a root filled tooth or its extraction and replacement with an implant. Making an informed judgement relies upon not only clinical experience and expertise but also interpretation of the published clinical evidence. In the last few years, more robust data and closer scrutiny of the evidence has helped to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each of these treatment modalities. The purpose of this paper is to provide a narrative review of some of the factors that may influence treatment planning for root canal treated teeth and indications for whether these teeth would be better replaced by an implant. From the evidence presented it is clear that both treatments have a place in contemporary restorative dental treatment and that survival for both root filled teeth and implants are similar. Unsurprisingly, both these treatment choices require high standards of clinical expertise and careful planning to ensure the best outcome.
    British dental journal official journal of the British Dental Association: BDJ online 03/2014; 216(6):325-30. · 1.09 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 23, 2014