Abstract
Bone can be classified according to the composition, structure, quality, and density, and the relationship between bone quality and quantity has a direct crucial influence on the success rate and the osteotomy protocol for endosteal implants as well as in aesthetic, and integrity and function. Various classificaions have been suggested according to the atrophy, where it is partial or full edenulous jaws for enhancement of osteointegration of dental implant in low quantity bone.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(3):416–24.
Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(8):873–9.
Turkyilmaz I, Tözüm TF, Tumer MC. Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34(4):267–72.
Aksoy U, Eratalay K, Tözüm TF. The possible association among bone density values, resonance frequency measurements, tactile sense, and histomorphometric evaluations of dental implant osteotomy sites: a preliminary study. Implant Dent. 2009;18(4):316–25.
Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(6):1088–95.
Lee S, Gantes B, Riggs M, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implants sites: 3. Bone quality evaluation during osteotomy and implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(2):208–12.
Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Ozdemir T. Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for computer-assisted implant placement. Part I: Relationship of radiographic gray density and implant stability. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00436.x
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.
Lindh C, Nilsson M, Klinge B, Petersson A. Quantitative computed tomography of trabecular bone in the mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1996;25(3):146–50.
Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive bone loading. Int J Oral Implantol. 1990;6(2):23–31.
Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(2):290–7.
Oikarinen K, Raustia AM, Hartikainen M. General and local contraindications for endosseal implants – an epidemiological panoramic radiograph study in 65-year-old subjects. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1995;23(2):114–8.
CAtwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges: a major oral disease entity. J Prosthet Dent. 1971;26(3):266–79.
Mercier P, Lafontant R. Residual alveolar ridge atrophy: classification and influence of facial morphology. J Prosthet Dent. 1979;41(1):90–100.
Seibert JS. Reconstruction of deformed, partially edentulous ridges, using full thickness onlay grafts. Part I. Technique and wound healing. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1983;4(5):437–53.
Allen EP, Gainza CS, Farthing GG, Newbold DA. Improved technique for localized ridge augmentation. A report of 21 cases. J Periodontol. 1985;56(4):195–9.
Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988;17(4):232–6.
Eufinger H, Gellrich NC, Sandmann D, Dieckmann J. Descriptive and metric classification of jaw atrophy. An evaluation of 104 mandibles and 96 maxillae of dried skulls. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;26(1):23–8.
Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(3):721–64.
Meyer U, Vollmer D, Runte C, Bourauel C, Joos U. Bone loading pattern around implants in average and atrophic edentulous maxillae: a finite-element analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001;29(2):100–5.
Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent. 1972;27(2):120–32.
Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(3):721–64.
Linck GK, Ferreira GM, De Oliveira RC, Lindh C, Leles CR, Ribeiro-Rotta RF. The influence of tactile perception on classification of bone tissue at dental implant insertion. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(3):601–8. PMID: 25850635.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ayati, S., Ghasemi, S. (2021). Bone Quantity. In: Stevens, M.R., Ghasemi, S., Tabrizi, R. (eds) Innovative Perspectives in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75750-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75750-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75749-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75750-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)