Evaluation of bone-implant integration: efficiency and precision of 3 methods

Computer-assisted planimetry, computer-assisted lineal analysis, and point-counting stereology have been compared with respect to their reproducibility and the time required to analyze bone-implant integration. Sections of 6 threaded dental implants selected from a bone augmentation experiment for their wide range of new bone formation were analyzed by each method 3 times. The bone density and percentage of osseous integration were evaluated at 4 sites around each implant section. It was found that computer-assisted planimetry demonstrated a modest but significantly greater variance (P < .05) in bone density estimates when compared to the computer-assisted lineal analysis and point-counting methods. Computer-assisted planimetry requires a different method of measuring each parameter and separate fields of view to evaluate fields distant from the implant. However, this can all be accomplished with line probes, as in computer-assisted lineal analysis, which extend from the implant surface into the surrounding alveolar bone. Whereas computer-assisted planimetry requires a separate identification of the perimeter of each field to be analyzed (next to and distant from the implant), computer-assisted lineal analysis allows expansion of the field to be evaluated without creating a new field of view. Also, following a limited learning curve, both point-counting and computer-assisted lineal analysis required less time to complete than did computer-assisted planimetry.