Hounsfield unit comparison of grafted versus non-grafted extraction sockets.

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.

[1]  C. Misch Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive boen loading. , 1990, The International journal of oral implantology : implantologist.

[2]  Misch Ce Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive boen loading. , 1990 .

[3]  A. Wenzel,et al.  Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. , 2003, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[4]  D. Fyhrie Summary--Measuring "bone quality". , 2005, Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions.

[5]  F. Gebhart,et al.  Imaging of bone transplants in the maxillofacial area by NewTom 9000 cone-beam computed tomography: a quality assessment. , 2008, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[6]  M. Quirynen,et al.  Bone formation following implantation of bone biomaterials into extraction sites. , 2008, Journal of periodontology.

[7]  Hom-lay Wang,et al.  Comparison of dermal matrix and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for socket bone augmentation: a clinical and histologic study. , 2009, Journal of periodontology.

[8]  A. Katsumata,et al.  Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[9]  N. Mardas,et al.  Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration and a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine-derived xenograft: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  B. Mealey,et al.  Histologic analysis of healing after tooth extraction with ridge preservation using mineralized human bone allograft. , 2010, Journal of periodontology.

[11]  Hiroshi Watanabe,et al.  Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  W. McDavid,et al.  Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. , 2010, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[13]  F. Maes,et al.  Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  A. Parsa,et al.  Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for preoperative implant planning assessment. , 2012, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Buccal Bone Plate in the Immediately Placed and Restored Maxillary Single Implant: A 7-Year Retrospective Study Using Computed Tomography , 2012, Implant dentistry.

[16]  Yifei Liu,et al.  Calibration of cone beam CT using relative attenuation ratio for quantitative assessment of bone density: a small animal study , 2013, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[17]  G. Ambrosano,et al.  Bone density: comparative evaluation of Hounsfield units in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography. , 2012, Brazilian oral research.

[18]  K. Koyano,et al.  Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  N. Donos,et al.  Alveolar ridge preservation. A systematic review , 2012, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[20]  Hiroshi Watanabe,et al.  Stability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral content. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[21]  Hom-lay Wang,et al.  Alterations in bone quality after socket preservation with grafting materials: a systematic review. , 2013, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[22]  R. Molteni Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. , 2013, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[23]  S. Wallace Guided bone regeneration for socket preservation in molar extraction sites: histomorphometric and 3D computerized tomography analysis. , 2013, The Journal of oral implantology.

[24]  J. Yu,et al.  Assessments of jaw bone density at implant sites using 3D cone-beam computed tomography. , 2014, European review for medical and pharmacological sciences.

[25]  S. Elangovan,et al.  Effect of Alveolar Ridge Preservation after Tooth Extraction , 2014, Journal of dental research.