Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Winter;8(1):33-8.

Comparison of Conventional and Standardized Bone Densitometry around Implants in Periapical Radiographs during a Three Months Period

Asieh Zamani Naser  1 , Shahab Etemadi, Mansour Rismanchian, Mahnaz Sheikhi, Mohammadbagher Tavakoli
Affiliations

Comparison of Conventional and Standardized Bone Densitometry around Implants in Periapical Radiographs during a Three Months Period

Asieh Zamani Naser et al. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011 Winter.

Abstract

Background: Comparing continuous films taken at different timescales is a way to study the alveolar bone changes around the implant over time. One of the important concerns in quantitative analysis of the alveolar bone changes over the time is to reduce variations in the X-ray imaging geometry and image density.

Methods: Using a modified XCP film holder together with the bite recording material, parallel periapical radiographs were taken from the implants placements of 16 patients in four steps. Densities of radiographs were measured in a conventional way using the video densitometry device. The same films were also scanned; sequential radiographic density of each patient was homogenised and the density was measured. Density changes obtained in both methods were compared. The data were evaluated using ANOVA, paired t-test and Pearson correlation (α = 0.05).

Results: IN THE CONVENTIONAL METHOD OF DENSITOMETRY, THE AVERAGE DENSITIES WERE AS FOLLOWS: before operation 1.0044, after one week 0.9600, after one month 0.9469 and after three months 0.9398. Also, in the standard method of densitometry, the average densities were as follows: before operation 111.7013, after one week 113.4225, after one month 119.4075 and after three months 131.1162. Average density in conventional densitometry were not significantly different in various time stages (P = 0.395). But, the standard densitometry method showed a significant difference (P = 0.001).

Conclusion: The average density obtained at different stages in the standard densitometry showed a gradual increase in the bone density in the entire process. Standardising the patient's consecutive radiographic images is essential for quantitative measurements over the time.

Keywords: Densitometry; Dental implants; Radiography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
XCP with built-wedge steps.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Average optical density in various time stages of conventional densitometry.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Average optical density in various time stages of standard densitometry.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bittar-Cortez JA, Passeri LA, Boscolo FN, Haiter-Neto F. Comparison of hard tissue density changes around implants assessed in digitized conventional radiographs and subtraction images. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(5):560–4. - PubMed
    1. Kavadella A, Karayiannis A, Nicopoulou-Karayianni K. Detectability of experimental peri-implant cancellous bone lesions using conventional and direct digital radiography. Aust Dent J. 2006;51(2):180–6. - PubMed
    1. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(1):527–51. - PubMed
    1. Friberg B, Jemt T, Lekholm U. Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Branemark dental implants: a study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;6(2):142–6. - PubMed
    1. Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, Kultje C. Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(2):220–30. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources