Jawbone quality classification in dental implant planning and placement studies. A scoping review

Cone beam computed tomography has become an attractive method for implant planning. However, in most cases, not all the information is taken advantage of and often the radiographic evaluation of bone quality is based on subjective assessment by the individual clinician. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine classifications of bone tissue characteristics and methods for assessing them in dental implant planning and placement studies.

Three databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched using specific index terms: "Bone quality, bone quantity, bone density, cone-beam CT and cone-beam computed tomography". Three reviewers selected titles and analyzed abstracts according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Some descriptions of bone tissue characteristics (bone quality, density, and quantity) used before or during dental implant placement were selected and categorized.

The search yielded 442 titles. A total of 32 articles were selected and read in full text. Seventeen articles were considered relevant. Different classification systems were found to evaluate bone tissue characteristics as well as different examination protocols. Thirteen publications included in this review reported on bone quality and quantity using the Lekholm and Zarb classification. However, only four studies implemented and/or proposed modifications of the Lekholm and Zarb system. Four other publications described bone quality according to different classification systems such as Misch, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), or Trisi and Rao. The assessment methods were often briefly described (or not described at all in one publication). Of the articles analyzed, five presented observer performance, whereas three presented diagnostic accuracy of the assessment method.

Currently, there are different classification systems applied to dental implant planning and placement, particularly regarding whether bone quality or quantity affects treatment outcomes. However, most authors have not validated the diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of the classification used. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a classification system consistent with characteristics of bone tissue, taking into consideration an adequate description of bone tissue assessment methods, their diagnostic accuracy, and observer performance.