Tony Vanderstuyft1, Mihai Tarce1, Bahoz Sanaan1, Reinhilde Jacobs2,3, Karla de Faria Vasconcelos2,3, Marc Quirynen1. 1. Section of Periodontology, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry, University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium. 2. OMFS-IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this article was to evaluate the accuracy of buccal bone thickness measurements around implants on CBCT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-four Osseospeed EV implants (3.6 in Ø) were placed guided and flapless in five fresh frozen human cadaver heads. The buccal peri-implant bone was measured clinically via guided bone sounding. Post-op CBCTs were taken with two different CBCT scanners (NewTom® and Accuitomo® ) on which the buccal bone was measured. Consequently, after implant removal, a new CBCT was made without implant artefacts (image reference standard) on which the real buccal bone thickness was scored. RESULTS: Due to an average blooming (artificial increase of implant diameter) percentage of 12%-15%, the buccal peri-implant bone thickness was underestimated by 0.3 mm on both CBCT devices. Immediately adjacent to the implant blooming area, a doubtful zone of about 0.45 mm was observed in which the buccal bone was not always visible. Buccal bone that was thick enough to fall outside this doubtful zone could always be visualized. CONCLUSION: The findings in this study may help the clinician in the decision-making process whether or not to intervene surgically in areas with ambiguous CBCT results.
AIM: The aim of this article was to evaluate the accuracy of buccal bone thickness measurements around implants on CBCT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-four Osseospeed EV implants (3.6 in Ø) were placed guided and flapless in five fresh frozen human cadaver heads. The buccal peri-implant bone was measured clinically via guided bone sounding. Post-op CBCTs were taken with two different CBCT scanners (NewTom® and Accuitomo® ) on which the buccal bone was measured. Consequently, after implant removal, a new CBCT was made without implant artefacts (image reference standard) on which the real buccal bone thickness was scored. RESULTS: Due to an average blooming (artificial increase of implant diameter) percentage of 12%-15%, the buccal peri-implant bone thickness was underestimated by 0.3 mm on both CBCT devices. Immediately adjacent to the implant blooming area, a doubtful zone of about 0.45 mm was observed in which the buccal bone was not always visible. Buccal bone that was thick enough to fall outside this doubtful zone could always be visualized. CONCLUSION: The findings in this study may help the clinician in the decision-making process whether or not to intervene surgically in areas with ambiguous CBCT results.
Authors: Stefan P Bienz; Michael Payer; Jenni Hjerppe; Jürg Hüsler; Norbert Jakse; Patrick R Schmidlin; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung; Daniel S Thoma Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 5.021
Authors: Victor Aquino Wanderley; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Andre Ferreira Leite; Ruben Pauwels; Sohaib Shujaat; Reinhilde Jacobs; Matheus L Oliveira Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2021-07-14