SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Avrasya Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 6

Preoperative Assessment of Bone Density for Dental Implants: A CBCT-Based Software Comparison Study

Dental İmplantlar İçin Preoperatif Kemik Densitesinin Değerlendirilmesi: KIBT Tabanlı Bir Yazılım Karşılaştırma Çalışması

Zuhal Ovuz(ÇANKIRI KARATEKİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-2419-9793
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion Owing to the study's limitations, an objective evaluation of bone density at a particular spot before dental implants are placed could offer useful clinical data for choosing implant size and planning patient-specific drilling protocols.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective Determining the bone density at potential dental implant locations is essential for choosing the right implant type and organizing a drilling operation that will guarantee the implant's primary stability and osseointegration.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, a group of 100 individuals who were partially edentulous participated in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion Owing to the study's limitations, an objective evaluation of bone density at a particular spot before dental implants are placed could offer useful clinical data for choosing implant size and planning patient-specific drilling protocols.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:dental implant · hounsfield unit · kemik yoğunluğu

Abstract

Objective Determining the bone density at potential dental implant locations is essential for choosing the right implant type and organizing a drilling operation that will guarantee the implant's primary stability and osseointegration. This study aims to facilitate the planning of dental implant placement by evaluating bone density in the target area. Method Using three distinct software applications, this study compared the bone densities of the mandibular mental foramen areas. Using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, a group of 100 individuals who were partially edentulous participated in the study. Results Three distinct software applications were used for the analysis of Hounsfield units (HUs). All programs yielded similar measurements in the mandibular premolar area. Conclusion Owing to the study's limitations, an objective evaluation of bone density at a particular spot before dental implants are placed could offer useful clinical data for choosing implant size and planning patient-specific drilling protocols.

Özet

Amaç: Dental implant uygulamalarında primer stabilite ve başarılı osseointegrasyonun sağlanabilmesi için implant yerleştirilecek bölgede kemik yoğunluğunun doğru biçimde değerlendirilmesi gereklidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, mandibular mental foramen bölgesindeki kemik yoğunluğunu üç farklı yazılım kullanarak karşılaştırmak ve implant planlamasına katkıda bulunmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada, parsiyel dişsizlik gösteren 100 bireye ait konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) görüntüleri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Mandibular premolar bölgedeki kemik yoğunluğu değerleri üç farklı görüntü analiz yazılımı kullanılarak ölçüldü ve Hounsfield unit (HU) cinsinden karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Üç yazılım ile elde edilen HU ölçüm değerleri arasında mandibular premolar bölgede anlamlı bir fark gözlenmedi. Tüm yazılımlar bölgedeki kemik yoğunluğuna ilişkin birbirine yakın ve uyumlu sonuçlar sundu. Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sınırlılıkları dikkate alındığında, implant öncesi hedef bölgede kemik yoğunluğunun objektif olarak değerlendirilmesi, implant boyutunun belirlenmesinde ve hastaya özgü delme protokollerinin planlanmasında klinik açıdan yararlı olabilir. Farklı yazılımların benzer sonuçlar vermesi, bu tür ölçümlerin implant planlamasında güvenle kullanılabileceğini düşündürmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ovuz, Z. (2026). Preoperative Assessment of Bone Density for Dental Implants: A CBCT-Based Software Comparison Study. Avrasya Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Sayı: 6. https://doi.org/10.53493/avrasyasbd.1842930

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Ahmed M, Ikram Y, Qureshi F, Sharjeel M, Ahmed Khan Z, Ataullah K, Memorial Hospital Lahore Pakistan F. (2021). Assessment of Jaw Bone Density In Terms Of Hounsfield Units Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography For Dental Implant. Pak Armed Forces Med J, 71(1): 221-248.
  2. Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, Yamada JM, Crigger M. (2005). Bone Density Assessments of Dental Implant Sites: 2. Quantitative Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 20(3): 416.
  3. Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Özdemir T. (2013). Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for computer-assisted implant placement. Part I: Relationship of radiographic gray. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 15(6): 893-906. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00436.X Armstrong R. (2006). Acceptability of cone beam CT vs. multi-detector CT for 3D anatomic model construction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 64(9): 37.
  4. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. (2005). A 5-year follow-up comparative analysis of the efficacy of various osseointegrated dental implant systems: a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant, 20: 557-568.
  5. Glide-Hurst C, Chen D, Zhong H, Chetty IJ. (2013). Changesrealized from extended bit-depth and metal artifact reduction in CT. Med Phys, 40(6): 061711. https://doi. org/10.1118/1.4805102
  6. Javed F, Ahmed H, Crespi R, Romanos G. (2013). Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: factors of influence and evaluation. Interv Med Appl Sci, 5(4): 162-167.
  7. Kim SH, Kim S, Lee KW, Han DH. (2010). The effects of local factors on the survival of dental implants: a 19-year retrospective study. J Korean Acad Prosthodont, 48(1): 28. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.1.28
  8. Lindh C, Petersson A, Dr O, Rohlin M. (1996). Assessment of the trabecular pattern before endosseous implant treatment: diagnostic outcome of periapical radiography in the mandible. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 82(3): 335-343.
  9. Liu J, Chen HY, Dodo H, Yousef H, Firestone AR, Chaudhry J, et al. (2017). Efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography in evaluating bone quality for optimum implant treatment planning. Implant Dent, 26(3): 405-411.
  10. Mikic M, Vlahovic Z, Stevanović M, Arsic Z. (2022). The Importance of Correlation between CBCT Analysis of Bone Density and Primary Stability When Choosing the Design of Dental Implants—Ex Vivo Study. Tomography, 8(3): 1293-1306.
  11. Misch CE. (2021). Misch's Contemporary Implant Dentistry (4th ed.). Elsevier.
  12. Morar L, Băciuț G, Băciuț M, Bran S, Colosi H. (2022). Analysis of CBCT bone density using the Hounsfield scale. Prosthesis, 4(3).
  13. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. (2011). Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res, 22(8): 873-879. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600- 0501.2010.02076.X
  14. Omami G, AlYafi F. (2019). Should cone beam computed tomography be routinely obtained in implant planning? Dent Clin North Am, 63(3): 63-79.
  15. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, Der Van Stelt P, Wismeijer D. (2013). Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at an implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 42(3).
  16. Pauwels R. (2013). Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 165(1-4): 156-161.
  17. Radi IAW, Ibrahim W, Iskandar SMS, AbdelNabi N. (2018). Prognosis of dental implants in patients with low bone density: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent, 120(5): 668-677.
  18. Rios HF, Borgnakke WS, Benavides E. (2017). The use of cone-beam computed tomography in management of patients requiring dental implants: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol, 88(10): 946-959.
  19. Romans L. (2025). Computed Tomography for Technologists: A Comprehensive Text (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  20. Shokri A, Jamalpour MR, Khavid A, Mohseni Z, Sadeghi M. (2019). Effect of exposure parameters of cone beam computed tomography on metal artifact reduction around the dental implants in various bone densities. BMC Med Imaging, 19(1): 1-10.
  21. Sogo M, Ikebe K, Yang T, Wada M, Maeda Y. (2012). Assessment of bone density in the posterior maxilla based on Hounsfield units to enhance the initial stability of implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 14(s1).
  22. Trisi P, Rao W. (1999). Bone classification: clinical-histomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res, 10(1): 1-7.