Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 1, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Comparative evaluation of bone density after implant placement using cone-beam CT analysis in augmented versus
Vishal Kulkarni1, Hemant Gupta1, Swati Gupta2
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Command Military Dental Centre, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Introduction:
Dental implants are the most popular alternative to rehabilitation of missing teeth and oro-facial structures. The outcome of such procedures depends on various factors and most-importantly on the osseo-integation with the surrounding bone. The evaluation needs better visualization and evaluation using CBCT anaylsis and determination of HU, using an appropriate software.
Materials And Methods:
This prospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary level teaching hospital. A total of 129 cases were considered for the study after applying the laid down inclusion and exclusion criteria. Implant placement was done by single operator for placement of the endosteal implant (AB implant system Inc). All implants were placed using a minimum insertion torque of 25 Ncm as assessed by the physio-dispenser (NSK). The HU numbers were obtained at specified areas after immediate and 24 weeks post-operative period. The cases were divided into Augmented cases (Group I) and non-augmented cases (Group II). The augmented cases utilised Novabone putty bone graft.
Results:
The study showed homogenous distribution of skewness and kurtosis in both the groups. The initial increase in augmented cases was due to increased radio-opacity of the graft. The HU values reached to near normal in both groups with no significant difference. The statistical test needed to analyze equality of variances, Levene's test was considered to ascertain the level of significance. Although the variance of subjects in group I is significantly different from that of group II, the test concludes that equal variances are not assumed. This prompts us to reject the null hypothesis at hand.
Conclusion:
The use of augmentation as in this case with a bone putty show no significant improvement in improved bone quality at accelerated time. The study may need to be further augmented with research.
