Korelacija vrednosti gustine kosti dobijene pomoću kompjuterizovane tomografije konusnim zrakom i primarne stabilnosti implantata – klinička studija
Scindeks Asistent Scindeks Asistent — Sistem za uređivanje časopisa
PDF (engleski)

Kako citirati

1.
Mikić M, Vlahović Z, Nenezić D, Videnović G, Ilić D, Mladenović R. Korelacija vrednosti gustine kosti dobijene pomoću kompjuterizovane tomografije konusnim zrakom i primarne stabilnosti implantata – klinička studija . Vojnosanit Pregl [Internet]. 20. Avgust 2021. [citirano 12. Juli 2026.];78(8). Dostupno na: https://asistent.ceon.rs/index.php/vsp/article/view/22988

Sažetak

Uvod/Cilj. Postoje mnogobrojne studije o korisnosti kompjuterizovane tomografije (KT) u proceni volumena i morfologije kosti, kao i o odnosu između KT i primarne stabilnosti implantata. Međutim, malo je podataka o povezanosti gustine kosti i vrednosti primarne stabilnosti implantata. Cilj studije bio je da se ispita povezanost gustine kosti dobijene putem KT konusnim zrakom i vrednosti primarne stabilnosti. Metode. Klinička prospektivna eksperimantalna studija je obavljena kod 38 zdravih pacijenata sa nedostatkom jednog zuba u bočnoj regiji. Planirana je ugradnja samourezujućih Bredent Blue Sky Narrow dentalnih implantata dimenzija 3,5 × 10 mm. U preoperativnoj pripremi urađen je snimak KT konusnim zrakom na aparatu Planmeca, a zatim su u softveru aparata za KT konusnim zrakom (Romexis) izvršena preimplantološka merenja i planiranja. Srednja vrednost prosečne gustine kosti je automatski dobijena i izražena u Hounsfield jedinicama (HU). Nakon postavljanja implantata izvršili smo merenja primarne stabilnosti implantata pomoću Osstell aparata. Rezultati. Od 38 pacijenata uključenih u studiju, 68,4% je bilo muškog, a 31,6% ženskog pola. Aritmetička sredina izmerene gustine kosti svih ispitanika u istraživanju iznosila je 536,2 HU. Aritmetička sredina primarne stabilnosti dentalnih implantata svih ispitanika u istraživanju iznosila je 68,7 ISQ. Utvrđena je statistički značajna jaka pozitivna povezanost HU i ISQ (r = 0,744, p < 0,001). Više vrednosti HU bile su povezane sa višim vrednostima ISQ. U modelu multivarijantne linearne regresije statistički značajni prediktori viših vrednosti ISQ bili su: muški pol (B = 4,669; p = 0,047) i više vrednosti HU (B = 0,032; p < 0,001). Zaključak. U našoj kliničkoj studiji smo pokazali da postoji statistički značajna jaka pozitivna povezanost između gustine kosti izražene HU jedinicama, izmerene u softveru aparata za KT konusnim zrakom i primarne stabilnosti dentalnih implantata izraženih u ISQ jedinicama.

Ključne reči

kost, gustina
tomografija, kompjuterizovana, konusna
implantati, stomatološki
lečenje, ishod
DOI: 10.2298/VSP190902134M

Reference

Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44(1): 20140238.

Chou IC, Lee SY, Jiang CP. Effects of implant neck design on primary stability and overload in a type IV mandibular bone. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 2014; 30(11): 1223‒37.

Möhlhenrich SC, Kniha K, Heussen N, Hölzle F, Modabber A. Ef-fects on primary stability of three different techniques for im-plant site preparation in synthetic bone models of different densities. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54(9): 980–6.

Vlahovic Z, Mihailovic B, Lazic Z, Golubovic M. Comparative ra-diographic and resonance frequency analyses of the peri-implant tissue after dental implants placement using flap and flapless techniques: An experimental study on domestic pigs. Vojnosanit Pregl 2013; 70(6): 586‒94.

Becker W, Hujoel P, Becker BE. Resonance frequency analysis: Comparing two clinical instruments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20(3): 308–12.

Heinemann F, Hasan I, Bourauel C, Biffar R, Mundt T. Bone sta-bility around dental implants: Treatment related factors. Ann Anat 2015; 199: 3‒8.

Spies BC, Bateli M, Ben Rahal G, Christmann M, Vach K, Kohal RJ. Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Re-sults of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018: 8436437.

Rokn A, Ghahroudi AR, Mesgarzadeh A, Miremadi A, Yaghoobi S. Evaluation of stability changes in tapered and parallel wall implants: a human clinical trial. J Dent (Tehran) 2011; 8(4): 186–200.

Bilhan H, Bilmenoglu C, Urgun AC, Ates G, Bural C, Cilingir A, et al. Comparison of the Primary Stability of Two Implant Designs in Two Different Bone Types: An In Vitro Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30(5): 1036‒40.

Greenberg AM. Cone beam computed tomography scanning and diagnosis for dental implants. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2015; 27(2): 185–202.

Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on treatment planning, sur-gical approach and healing. In: Misch CE, editor. Contempo-rary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2007. p. 469–85.

Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration In Clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 199–209.

Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12(1): 79‒84.

Engfors I, Örtorp A, Jemt T. Fixed implant-supported prosthe-ses in elderly patients: a 5-year retrospective study of 133 edentulous patients older than 79 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004; 6(4): 190‒8.

De Backer H, Van Maele G, De Moor N, Van den Berghe L. Sin-gle tooth replacement: Is a 3-unit fixed partial denture still an option? A 20 year retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19(6): 567–73.

Turkyilmaz I. Clinical and radiological results of patients treat-ed with two loading protocols for mandibular overdentures on Branemark implants. J Clin Periodontol 2006; 33(3): 233‒8.

Jemt T, Lekholm U. Implant treatment in edentulous maxilla: a five-year fol- low-up report on patients with different degrees of jaw resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10(3): 303–11.

Kaptein ML, De Lange GL, Blijdorp PA. Peri-implant tissue health in reconstructed atrophic maxillae--report of 88 pa-tients and 470 implants. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26(6): 464–74.

Grunder U. Immediate functional loading of immediate im-plants in edentulous arches: two-year results. Int J Periodon-tics Restorative Dent 2001; 21(6): 545–51.

Marković A, Calvo-Guirado JL, Lazić Z, Gómez-Moreno G, Ćala-san D, Guardia J, et al. Evaluation of Primary Stability of Self-Tapping and Non-Self-Tapping Dental Implants. A 12-Week Clinical Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013; 15(3): 341‒9.

Homolka P, Beer A, Birkfellner W, Nowotny R, Gahleitner A, Tschabitscher M, et al. Bone Mineral Density Measurement with Dental Quantitative CT Prior to Dental Implant Placement in Cadaver Mandibles: Pilot Study. Radiology 2002; 224(1): 247‒52.

Fanuscu MI, Chang TL. Three-dimensional morphometric anal-ysis of human cadaver bone: microstructural data from maxilla and mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15(2): 213‒8.

Hanazawa T, Sano T, Seki K, Okano T. Radiologic measure-ments of the mandible: a comparison between CT-reformatted and conventional tomographic images. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15(2): 226‒32.

Beer A, Gahleitner A, Holm A, Tschabitscher M, Homolka P. Cor-relation of insertion torques with bone mineral density from dental quantitative CT in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14(5): 616‒20.

Ikumi N, Tsutsumi S. Assessment of correlation between com-puterized tomography values of the bone and cutting torque values at implant placement: a clinical study. Int J Oral Maxil-lofac Implants 2005; 20(2): 253–60.

Turkyilmaz I, Tözüm TF, Tumer C, Ozbek EN. Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone, and maximum torque and resonance frequency values at dental implant placement. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33(12): 881‒8.

Turkyilmaz I, Tumer C, Ozbek EN, Tözüm TF. Relations be-tween the bone density values from computerized tomogra-phy, and implant stability parameters: a clinical study of 230 regular platform implants. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34(8): 716–22.

Strub JR, Jurdzik BA, Tuna T. Prognosis of immediately loaded implants and their restorations: a systematic literature review. J Oral Rehabil 2012; 39(9): 704–17.

Vlahović Z, Mikić M. 3D Printing Guide Implant Placement: A Case Report. Balk J Dent Med 2017; 21(1): 65‒8.

Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21(2): 290–7.

Tatli U, Salimov F, Kürkcü M, Akoğlan M, Kurtoğlu C. Does cone beam computed tomography-derived bone density give pre-dictable data about stability changes of immediately loaded implants?: A 1-year resonance frequency follow-up study. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25(3): e293–9.

Fuster-Torres MA, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Oltra D. Rela-tionships between bone density values from cone beam com-puted tomography maximum insertion torque, and resonance frequency analysis at implantplacement: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26(5): 1051–6.

Hiasa K, Abe Y, Okazaki Y, Nogami K, Mizumachi W, Akagawa Y. Preoperative Computed Tomography-Derived Bone Densi-ties in Hounsfield Units at Implant Sites Acquired Primary Stability. ISRN Dent 2011; 2011: 678729

Marquezan M, Osório A, Sant'Anna E, Souza MM, Maia L. Does bone mineral density influence the primary stability of dental implants? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23(7): 767‒74.

Herekar M, Sethi M, Ahmad T, Fernandes AS, Patil V, Kulkarni H. A correlation between bone (B), insertion torque (IT), and implant stability (S): BITS score. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112(4): 805–10.