TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of alveolar bone on dental implant treatment using cone beam computed tomography
AU - Dwingadi, Edward
AU - Soeroso, Yuniarti
AU - Lessang, Robert
AU - Priaminiarti, Menik
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Association of Support to Oral Health Research (APESB). All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - Objective: To observe the outcomes of dental implant treatment based on the evaluation of bone conditions using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods: A total of 31 dental implants were collected for the present study. Subsequently, mesial and distal bone losses were examined, while buccal and lingual bone thickness were measured at 7 levels. Evaluation and interpretation of CBCT results was performed by 3 independent examiners. Results: The average of mesial bone loss was 1.08 mm and 1.36 mm on distal bone. Every dental implant had lingual/palatal bone on level 1 to 3, only 1 (6.5%) didn’t have bone on level 4, 3 implants (9.7%) had no bone at level 5 and 6, and 22 implants (74.2%) had no bone at level 7/implant platform. There were 8 implants (25.8%) didn’t have buccal bone at level 7, only 1 implant (3.2%) didn’t have buccal bone at level 2,4,5 and 6, and there were 2 implants (6.5%) had no buccal bone on level 3. Dehiscence / fenestration can be seen on 90% of the implant subjects. Conclusion: These bone loss condition could be consequence of several factors such as infection, diagnosis, treatment plan, and operator’s surgery skills. The implants that placed without CBCT could lead to operator miscalculation on bone condition, therefore in moderate to advanced cases, the use of CBCT should be mandatory for treatment plan.
AB - Objective: To observe the outcomes of dental implant treatment based on the evaluation of bone conditions using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Material and Methods: A total of 31 dental implants were collected for the present study. Subsequently, mesial and distal bone losses were examined, while buccal and lingual bone thickness were measured at 7 levels. Evaluation and interpretation of CBCT results was performed by 3 independent examiners. Results: The average of mesial bone loss was 1.08 mm and 1.36 mm on distal bone. Every dental implant had lingual/palatal bone on level 1 to 3, only 1 (6.5%) didn’t have bone on level 4, 3 implants (9.7%) had no bone at level 5 and 6, and 22 implants (74.2%) had no bone at level 7/implant platform. There were 8 implants (25.8%) didn’t have buccal bone at level 7, only 1 implant (3.2%) didn’t have buccal bone at level 2,4,5 and 6, and there were 2 implants (6.5%) had no buccal bone on level 3. Dehiscence / fenestration can be seen on 90% of the implant subjects. Conclusion: These bone loss condition could be consequence of several factors such as infection, diagnosis, treatment plan, and operator’s surgery skills. The implants that placed without CBCT could lead to operator miscalculation on bone condition, therefore in moderate to advanced cases, the use of CBCT should be mandatory for treatment plan.
KW - Dental implantation
KW - Dental implants
KW - Diagnostic imaging
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066759258&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.94
DO - 10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.94
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85066759258
SN - 1519-0501
VL - 19
JO - Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clinica Integrada
JF - Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clinica Integrada
IS - 1
M1 - e4917
ER -