Search

Purpose: To evaluate the bone density using the surgeon's tactile sense and compare it to the Lekholm and Zarb classification and computed tomography (CT) scan to see if correlations exist., Materials and Methods: Fifty-two implants were inserted in 22 patients. The bone densities of recipient site were preoperatively determined by density value as Hounsfield Units (HU) using CT scans. According to the Lekholm and Zarb classification, the bone quality scored 1 to 4 on cross-sectional CT. The clinical hardness of recipient sites were assessed on drilling by the surgeon's tactile sense and recorded as D1-D4 based on Misch criteria. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between density values of implant sites., Results: The mean bone density was 536.94 ± 220.39 HU. There were 7.7% implants in bone type D1, 46.2% in D2, 32.7% in D3, and 13.5% in D4. Bone classification according to Lekholm and Zarb was significantly correlated to the surgeon's tactile sense (Spearman's rho = 0.36; P = 0.01) and with HU on CT images (Spearman's rho = -0.61; P < 0.001). The surgeon's tactile sense had a significant correlation with bone density in preoperative CT scans (Spearman's rho = -0.67; P < 0.001). A significant correlation was found between the bone density in HU with age (Spearman's rho = 0.34; P = 0.01)., Conclusion: A high-quality cross-sectional CT may suffice as a site-specific preoperative diagnostic predictor that can confirm and complement the tactile sense of the surgeon to help differentiate good, moderate, and poor bone density.

Objectives: Considering the importance of bone augmentation prior to implant placement in order to obtain adequate bone quality and quantity, many studies have been conducted to evaluate different techniques and materials regarding new bone formation. In this study, we investigated the bone healing capacity of two different materials deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM with the trade name of Bio-Oss) and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA with the trade name of DynaGraft). Materials and Methods: This randomized blinded prospective study was conducted on twelve New Zealand white rabbits. Three cranial defects with an equal diameter were created on their calvarium. Subsequently, they were distributed into three groups: 1. The control group without any treatment; 2. The Bio-Oss group; 3. The DynaGraft group. After 30 days, the animals were sacrificed for histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Results: Substantial new bone formation was observed in both groups. DynaGraft: 56/1 % ± 15/1 and Bio-Oss: 53/55 % ± 13/5 compared to the control group: 28/6 % ± 11/2. All groups showed slight inflammation and a small amount of residual biomaterial was observed. Conclusion: Considerable new bone formation was demonstrated in both DynaGraft and Bio-Oss groups in comparison with the control group. Both materials are considered biocompatible regarding the negligible foreign body reaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]