journal article·2015Open access

Hounsfield unit comparison of grafted versus non-grafted extraction sockets

Tyman P. Loveless, Yeliz Kilinc, Mehmet A. Altay, Andres Flores-Hidalgo, Dale A. Baur, Faisal A. Quereshy

Journal of Oral Science· Volume 57· Issue 3

Abstract

Volumetric changes of the alveolar ridge after socket preservation with various techniques have been investigated frequently. However, changes in bone density and quality of bone within the extraction sockets have seldom been studied. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bone quality of grafted versus non-grafted socket sites prior to dental implant placement using Hounsfield unit (HU) values derived from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. The data was collected from 39 healed extraction sites reviewed over a one-year period. Subjects eligible for the study had a bone replacement graft and barrier membrane. Both study and control groups had CBCT scans performed immediately after extraction and four to five months after extraction for planning implant placement. HU values were measured from the CBCT scans and compared between groups. Intragroup variability was assessed utilizing standard deviation and standard error of the mean. Intergroup differences were evaluated using unpaired t-test. A generalized lack of significant difference in bone quality was observed between groups with the only statistically significant difference observed in the posterior maxilla. Future radiographic and histologic assessments of bone quality after socket preservation are required to determine the 'ideal' approach to preserve an extraction socket prior to implant placement.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental Radiography and Imaging · Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Private Practice

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Antalya, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, Case Western Reserve University

References (23)

Show source-provided references
1. 1. Mardas N, Chadha V, Donos N (2010) Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration and a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine-derived xenograft: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 21, 688-698.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01918.x ↗
2. 2. Degidi M, Nardi D, Daprile G, Piattelli A (2012) Buccal bone plate in the immediately placed and restored maxillary single implant: a 7-year retrospective study using computed tomography. Implant Dent 21, 62-66.10.1097/ID.0b013e31823fce9f ↗
3. 3. Molly L, Vandromme H, Quirynen M, Schepers E, Adams JL, van Steenberghe D (2008) Bone formation following implantation of bone biomaterials into extraction sites. J Periodontol 79, 1108-1115.10.1902/jop.2008.070476 ↗
4. 4. Misch CE (1990) Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive bone loading. Int J Oral Implantol 6, 23-31.
5. 5. Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD (2010) Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39, 323-335.10.1259/dmfr/19603304 ↗
6. 6. Liu Y, Bäuerle T, Pan L, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Heiss C et al. (2013) Calibration of cone beam CT using relative attenuation ratio for quantitative assessment of bone density: a small animal study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 8, 733-739.10.1007/s11548-012-0803-5 ↗
7. 7. Draenert FG, Gebhart F, Neugebauer C, Coppenrath E, Mueller-Lisse U (2008) Imaging of bone transplants in the maxillofacial area by NewTom 9000 cone-beam computed tomography: a quality assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106, e31-35.10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.006 ↗
8. 8. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R (2011) Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 22, 873-879.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02076.x ↗
9. 9. Silva IM, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GM, Bóscolo FN, Almeida SM (2012) Bone density: comparative evaluation of Hounsfield units in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography. Braz Oral Res 26, 550-556.10.1590/S1806-83242012000600011 ↗
10. 10. Chan HL, Lin GH, Fu JH, Wang HL (2013) Alterations in bone quality after socket preservation with grafting materials: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28, 710-720.10.11607/jomi.2913 ↗
11. 11. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T (2003) Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 23, 313-323.
12. 12. Hao Y, Zhao W, Wang Y, Yu J, Zou D (2014) Assessments of jaw bone density at implant sites using 3D cone-beam computed tomography. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 18, 1398-1403.
13. 13. Fyhrie DP (2005) Summary--Measuring "bone quality". J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 5, 318-320.
14. 14. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D (2012) Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for preoperative implant planning assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27, 1438-1442.
15. 15. Molteni R (2013) Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116, 105-119.10.1016/j.oooo.2013.04.013 ↗
16. 16. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K (2012) Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 23, 832-836.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02203.x ↗
17. 17. Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T (2010) Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res 21, 558-562.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01896.x ↗
18. 18. Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E (2009) Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 20, 503-506.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01672.x ↗
19. 19. Horváth A, Mardas N, Mezzomo LA, Needleman IG, Donos N (2013) Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 17, 341-363.10.1007/s00784-012-0758-5 ↗
20. 20. Beck TM, Mealey BL (2010) Histologic analysis of healing after tooth extraction with ridge preservation using mineralized human bone allograft. J Periodontol 81, 1765-1772.10.1902/jop.2010.100286 ↗
21. 21. Wallace SC (2013) Guided bone regeneration for socket preservation in molar extraction sites: histomorphometric and 3D computerized tomography analysis. J Oral Implantol 39, 506-509.10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00001 ↗
22. 22. Fotek PD, Neiva RF, Wang HL (2009) Comparison of dermal matrix and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for socket bone augmentation: a clinical and histologic study. J Periodontol 80, 776-785.10.1902/jop.2009.080514 ↗
23. 23. Avila-Ortiz G, Elangovan S, Kramer KW, Blanchette D, Dawson DV (2014) Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 93, 950-958.10.1177/0022034514541127 ↗