Show simple item record

Quantitative Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Microradiography in the Evaluation of Bone Density after Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Preliminary Study

dc.contributor.authorSoardi, Carlo M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorZaffe, Davideen_US
dc.contributor.authorMotroni, Alessandroen_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hom‐layen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-03T16:51:59Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_12_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-09-03T16:51:59Z
dc.date.issued2014-08en_US
dc.identifier.citationSoardi, Carlo M.; Zaffe, Davide; Motroni, Alessandro; Wang, Hom‐lay (2014). "Quantitative Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Microradiography in the Evaluation of Bone Density after Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Preliminary Study." Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (4): 557-564.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1523-0899en_US
dc.identifier.issn1708-8208en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/108331
dc.description.abstractPurpose Cone beam computed tomography ( CBCT ) and microradiographic analyses were comparatively performed in maxillary sinus augmentation to preliminarily verify the diagnostic potential of CBCT on the evaluation of bone regeneration. Materials and Methods A two‐stage protocol was conducted in 19 consenting patients, all having the crestal bone ≤2 mm, in private dental office. Mineralized human bone allograft particles were used to augment sinus using lateral window approach. A succession of CBCT scans of the maxilla was taken before surgery, after sinus augmentation, and immediately after implant insertion. Using virtual probes, CBCT data were processed by medical imaging software and expressed as gray level ( GL ). A bone core biopsy was taken at implant placement, 6 months after surgery. Microradiography of transverse sections, taken 6, 8, and 10 mm from the crestal surface, of methacrylate‐embedded biopsies was performed to analyze and to evaluate the mineralized material amount ( MM %). Results A total of 21 sinus augmentations were performed. CBCT (mean GL : 646–693) data were not statistically different when comparing 6‐, 8‐, and 10‐mm sites to after grafting/implant‐insertion values. Furthermore, microradiographic (mean MM %: 45.3–48.3) data were not statistically different comparing 6‐, 8‐, and 10‐mm sites, due to variation of values among patients. A GL and MM % parallelism was identified considering each patient, instead. A significant correlation ( p  < .001) between GL and MM % was found after both W ilcoxon test for paired data and simple linear regression analysis. Conclusions The preliminary result clearly demonstrated the predictability of the CBCT analysis. Due to the limited sample and great variations of the MM % recorded in patients, further clinical and morphometric studies are needed to fulfill diagnostic expectations.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.publisherMc‐Graw Hillen_US
dc.subject.otherHistological Analysisen_US
dc.subject.otherMicroradiographyen_US
dc.subject.otherBone Allograften_US
dc.subject.otherCone Beam CTen_US
dc.subject.otherSinus Augmentationen_US
dc.titleQuantitative Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Microradiography in the Evaluation of Bone Density after Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Preliminary Studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistryen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108331/1/cid12016.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cid.12016en_US
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Researchen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Assche N, Quirynen M. Tolerance within a surgical guide. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 455 – 458.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTodisco M, Trisi P. Bone mineral density and bone histomorphometry are statistically related. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20: 898 – 904.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNkenke E, Hahn M, Weinzierl K, Radespiel‐Tröger M, Neukam FW, Engelke K. Implant stability and histomorphometry: a correlation study in human cadavers using stepped cylinder implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 601 – 609.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBotticelli S, Verna C, Cattaneo PM, Heidmann J, Melsen B. Two‐ versus three‐dimensional imaging in subjects with unerupted maxillary canines. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33: 344 – 349.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Ozdemir T. Conventional multi‐slice computed tomography (CT) and cone‐beam CT (CBCT) for computer‐assisted implant placement. Part I: relationship of radiographic gray density and implant stability. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708‐8208.2011.00436.x.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFlautre B, Hardouin P. La microradiographie dans l'étude des paramètres trabéculaires [Microradiography in the study of trabecular parameters]. Acta Orthop Belg 1992; 58: 287 – 296.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoivin G, Meunier PJ. The degree of mineralization of bone tissue measured by computerized quantitative contact microradiography. Calcif Tissue Int 2002; 70: 503 – 511.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNolff MC, Kokemueller H, Hauschild G, et al. Comparison of computed tomography and microradiography for graft evaluation after reconstruction of critical size bone defects using beta‐tricalcium phosphate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010; 38: 38 – 46.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuo S, Dipietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 219 – 229.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePuri KS, Suresh KR, Gogtay NJ, Thatte UM. Declaration of Helsinki, 2008: implications for stakeholders in research. J Postgrad Med 2009; 55: 131 – 134.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVercellotti T, De Paoli S, Nevins M. The piezoelectric bony window osteotomy and sinus membrane elevation: introduction of a new technique for simplification of the sinus augmentation procedure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2001; 21: 561 – 567.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStammberger H. Endoscopic endonasal surgery – concepts in treatment of recurring rhinosinusitis. Part I. Anatomic and pathophysiologic considerations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986; 94: 143 – 147.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePikos MA. Maxillary sinus membrane repair: update on technique for large and complete perforations. Implant Dent 2008; 17: 24 – 31.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSoardi CM, Spinato S, Zaffe D, Wang HL. Atrophic maxillary floor augmentation by mineralized human bone allograft in sinuses of different size: an histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 560 – 566.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTarnow DP, Wallace SS, Testori T, Froum SJ, Motroni A, Prasad HS. Maxillary sinus augmentation using recombinant bone morphogenetic protein‐2/acellular collagen sponge in combination with a mineralized bone replacement graft: a report of three cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010; 30: 139 – 149.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBertoldi C, Zaffe D, Consolo U. Polylactide/polyglycolide copolymer in bone defect healing in humans. Biomaterials 2008; 29: 1817 – 1823.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlantz SA. How to test for trends (Chapter 8), and Alternatives to analysis of variance and the t test based on ranks (Chapter 10). In: Glantz SA, ed. Primer of biostatistics. 5th ed. New York: Mc‐Graw Hill, 2003.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJung BA, Wehrbein H, Wagner W, Kunkel M. Preoperative diagnostic for palatal implants: is CT or CBCT necessary? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14: 400 – 405.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGahleitner A, Watzek G, Imhof H. Dental CT: imaging technique, anatomy, and pathologic conditions of the jaws. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 366 – 376.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShibuya Y, Takeuchi Y, Asai T, Takeuchi J, Suzuki H, Komori T. Maxillary sinus floor elevation combined with a vertical onlay graft. Implant Dent 2012; 21: 91 – 96.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 35 – 40.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHomolka P, Beer A, Birkfellner W, et al. Bone mineral density measurement with dental quantitative CT prior to dental implant placement in cadaver mandibles: pilot study. Radiology 2002; 224: 247 – 252.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchulze R, Heil U, Gross D, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265 – 273.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceConsolo U, Zaffe D, Bertoldi C, Ceccherelli G. Platelet‐rich plasma activity on maxillary sinus floor augmentation by autologous bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18: 252 – 262.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHashizume H, Asahara H, Nishida K, Inoue H, Konishiike T. Histopathology of Kienböck's disease. Correlation with magnetic resonance and other imaging techniques. J Hand Surg [Br] 1996; 21: 89 – 93.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBousson V, Bergot C, Meunier A, et al. CT of the middiaphyseal femur: cortical bone mineral density and relation to porosity. Radiology 2000; 217: 179 – 187.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLasbleiz J, Burgun A, Marin F, Rolland Y, Duvauferrier R. Analyse de la trame osseude vertébrale sur coupes scanographiques [Vertebral trabecular network analysis on CT images]. J Radiol 2005; 86: 645 – 649.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchultze‐Mosgau S, Keweloh M, Wiltfang J, Kessler P, Neukam FW. Histomorphometric and densitometric changes in bone volume and structure after avascular bone grafting in the extremely atrophic maxilla. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 39: 439 – 447.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.