PURPOSE: Bone quality at the implant site has a significant effect on the success and prognosis of implants. The purpose of this article was to evaluate several methods used in evaluating bone quality and discuss the advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: The search was made using PubMed database about quantitative computed tomography (QCT), and quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography (QCBCT), dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans, the resistance force against the hands of the surgeon, assessment of the effect of the torque of the drill, the initial fixed value of the implant, and fractal analysis according to the Lekholm and Zarb, and Misch classifications as the standard. RESULTS: The method for measuring the resistance force and torque during implant placement and the method used to determine the implant's initial implant fixed value were easy and simple. QCBCT was reported to involve less radiation and to be more objective than QCT. DXA and fractal analysis have limits when used to classify bone quality as type II or type III. CONCLUSION: Among the methods used to evaluate bone quality in implants, a method using computed tomography, measured in Hounsfield units, was found to be the most predictive.
PURPOSE: Bone quality at the implant site has a significant effect on the success and prognosis of implants. The purpose of this article was to evaluate several methods used in evaluating bone quality and discuss the advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: The search was made using PubMed database about quantitative computed tomography (QCT), and quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography (QCBCT), dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans, the resistance force against the hands of the surgeon, assessment of the effect of the torque of the drill, the initial fixed value of the implant, and fractal analysis according to the Lekholm and Zarb, and Misch classifications as the standard. RESULTS: The method for measuring the resistance force and torque during implant placement and the method used to determine the implant's initial implant fixed value were easy and simple. QCBCT was reported to involve less radiation and to be more objective than QCT. DXA and fractal analysis have limits when used to classify bone quality as type II or type III. CONCLUSION: Among the methods used to evaluate bone quality in implants, a method using computed tomography, measured in Hounsfield units, was found to be the most predictive.
Authors: Nathália R Gomes; Juliano D S Albergaria; Jonathas A de S Henriques; Tânia M P Amaral; Evandro N Abdo; Gerluza A B Silva; Cláudia Borges Brasileiro Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 2.419