Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography
Identifieur interne : 006404 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 006403; suivant : 006405Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography
Auteurs : I. Turkyilmaz ; T. F. Tözüm ; C. TumerSource :
- Journal of Oral Rehabilitation [ 0305-182X ] ; 2007-04.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Anterior mandible, Anterior maxilla, Blackwell publishing, Bone density, Bone density assessments, Bone density value, Bone density values, Bone mineral density, Bone quality, Clin, Computerized, Computerized tomography, Hacettepe university, Implant, Implant placement, Implant sites, Interest areas, Journal compilation, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular overdentures, Maxilla, Maxillofac, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral rehabil, Posterior mandible, Posterior maxilla, Present study, Previous studies, Rehabil, Strong correlation, Tomography, Valuable information.
- Teeft :
- Anterior mandible, Anterior maxilla, Blackwell publishing, Bone density, Bone density assessments, Bone density value, Bone density values, Bone mineral density, Bone quality, Clin, Computerized, Computerized tomography, Hacettepe university, Implant, Implant placement, Implant sites, Interest areas, Journal compilation, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular overdentures, Maxilla, Maxillofac, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral rehabil, Posterior mandible, Posterior maxilla, Present study, Previous studies, Rehabil, Strong correlation, Tomography, Valuable information.
Abstract
summary The type and architecture of bone are considered to affect its load‐bearing capacity and it has been indicated that poorer quality bone is associated with higher implant failure rates. To date, bone classifications have only provided subjective methods for pre‐operative assessment, which can be considered unreliable. The aim of this study was to evaluate variations of the bone density in designated endosseous implant sites using computerized tomography. One hundred and thirty‐one designated implant sites in 72 patients were utilized. Computerized tomography results indicated that bone densities may vary markedly when different areas of a designated implant site are compared. It has been observed that a difference in the bone density exists for the four regions within the oral area, with the anterior mandible yielding mean density values of 944·9 ± 207 Hounsfield units (HU) > anterior maxilla, 715·8 ± 190 HU > posterior mandible, 674·3 ± 227 HU > posterior maxilla and 455·1 ± 122 HU. Computerized tomography may be a useful tool for determining the bone density of interest areas before implant placement, and this valuable information about the bone quality provides dental practitioners to make better treatment planning regarding the implant positions.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79ELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography</title><author><name sortKey="Turkyilmaz, I" sort="Turkyilmaz, I" uniqKey="Turkyilmaz I" first="I." last="Turkyilmaz">I. Turkyilmaz</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Tozum, T F" sort="Tozum, T F" uniqKey="Tozum T" first="T. F." last="Tözüm">T. F. Tözüm</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Tumer, C" sort="Tumer, C" uniqKey="Tumer C" first="C." last="Tumer">C. Tumer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E</idno><date when="2007" year="2007">2007</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">006404</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">006404</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography</title><author><name sortKey="Turkyilmaz, I" sort="Turkyilmaz, I" uniqKey="Turkyilmaz I" first="I." last="Turkyilmaz">I. Turkyilmaz</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Tozum, T F" sort="Tozum, T F" uniqKey="Tozum T" first="T. F." last="Tözüm">T. F. Tözüm</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Tumer, C" sort="Tumer, C" uniqKey="Tumer C" first="C." last="Tumer">C. Tumer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">34</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="267">267</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="272">272</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007-04">2007-04</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Anterior mandible</term><term>Anterior maxilla</term><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Bone density</term><term>Bone density assessments</term><term>Bone density value</term><term>Bone density values</term><term>Bone mineral density</term><term>Bone quality</term><term>Clin</term><term>Computerized</term><term>Computerized tomography</term><term>Hacettepe university</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Interest areas</term><term>Journal compilation</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral rehabil</term><term>Posterior mandible</term><term>Posterior maxilla</term><term>Present study</term><term>Previous studies</term><term>Rehabil</term><term>Strong correlation</term><term>Tomography</term><term>Valuable information</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Anterior mandible</term><term>Anterior maxilla</term><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Bone density</term><term>Bone density assessments</term><term>Bone density value</term><term>Bone density values</term><term>Bone mineral density</term><term>Bone quality</term><term>Clin</term><term>Computerized</term><term>Computerized tomography</term><term>Hacettepe university</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Interest areas</term><term>Journal compilation</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral rehabil</term><term>Posterior mandible</term><term>Posterior maxilla</term><term>Present study</term><term>Previous studies</term><term>Rehabil</term><term>Strong correlation</term><term>Tomography</term><term>Valuable information</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">summary The type and architecture of bone are considered to affect its load‐bearing capacity and it has been indicated that poorer quality bone is associated with higher implant failure rates. To date, bone classifications have only provided subjective methods for pre‐operative assessment, which can be considered unreliable. The aim of this study was to evaluate variations of the bone density in designated endosseous implant sites using computerized tomography. One hundred and thirty‐one designated implant sites in 72 patients were utilized. Computerized tomography results indicated that bone densities may vary markedly when different areas of a designated implant site are compared. It has been observed that a difference in the bone density exists for the four regions within the oral area, with the anterior mandible yielding mean density values of 944·9 ± 207 Hounsfield units (HU) > anterior maxilla, 715·8 ± 190 HU > posterior mandible, 674·3 ± 227 HU > posterior maxilla and 455·1 ± 122 HU. Computerized tomography may be a useful tool for determining the bone density of interest areas before implant placement, and this valuable information about the bone quality provides dental practitioners to make better treatment planning regarding the implant positions.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>bone density</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>maxilla</json:string><json:string>tomography</json:string><json:string>implant sites</json:string><json:string>computerized</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>bone density values</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>rehabil</json:string><json:string>oral rehabil</json:string><json:string>computerized tomography</json:string><json:string>anterior maxilla</json:string><json:string>journal compilation</json:string><json:string>blackwell publishing</json:string><json:string>anterior mandible</json:string><json:string>posterior maxilla</json:string><json:string>implant placement</json:string><json:string>posterior mandible</json:string><json:string>interest areas</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>strong correlation</json:string><json:string>bone density value</json:string><json:string>mandibular overdentures</json:string><json:string>bone quality</json:string><json:string>hacettepe university</json:string><json:string>bone mineral density</json:string><json:string>bone density assessments</json:string><json:string>previous studies</json:string><json:string>valuable information</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>I. TURKYILMAZ</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>T. F. TÖZÜM</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>C. TUMER</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>oral implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bone density</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>computerized tomography</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Hounsfield value</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JOOR1689</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-T8XVVMFL-L</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>summary The type and architecture of bone are considered to affect its load‐bearing capacity and it has been indicated that poorer quality bone is associated with higher implant failure rates. To date, bone classifications have only provided subjective methods for pre‐operative assessment, which can be considered unreliable. The aim of this study was to evaluate variations of the bone density in designated endosseous implant sites using computerized tomography. One hundred and thirty‐one designated implant sites in 72 patients were utilized. Computerized tomography results indicated that bone densities may vary markedly when different areas of a designated implant site are compared. It has been observed that a difference in the bone density exists for the four regions within the oral area, with the anterior mandible yielding mean density values of 944·9 ± 207 Hounsfield units (HU) > anterior maxilla, 715·8 ± 190 HU > posterior mandible, 674·3 ± 227 HU > posterior maxilla and 455·1 ± 122 HU. Computerized tomography may be a useful tool for determining the bone density of interest areas before implant placement, and this valuable information about the bone quality provides dental practitioners to make better treatment planning regarding the implant positions.</abstract><qualityIndicators><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>178</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1278</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount><score>7.157</score><pdfWordCount>3021</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>19008</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize></qualityIndicators><title>Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography</title><pmid><json:string>17371564</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0305-182X</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1365-2842</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JOOR</json:string></publisherId><volume>34</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>267</first><last>272</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1987</json:string><json:string>2007</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>SPSS Inc., Chicago</json:string><json:string>Heraeus Kulzer Ltd</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</json:string><json:string>Hacettepe University</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName><json:string>Berkshire</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Munich</json:string><json:string>Turkey</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Truhlar et al.</json:string><json:string>Schwarz et al.</json:string><json:string>Shahlaie et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-T8XVVMFL-L</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2007</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x</json:string></doi><id>C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007-04"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography</title><title level="a" type="short">EVALUATION OF BONE DENSITY</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">I.</forename><surname>TURKYILMAZ</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey<address><country key="TR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">T. F.</forename><surname>TÖZÜM</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey<address><country key="TR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">C.</forename><surname>TUMER</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey<address><country key="TR"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-T8XVVMFL-L</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x</idno><idno type="unit">JOOR1689</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOOR.JOOR1689.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="pISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/jor.2007.34.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">JOOR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">34</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="267">267</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="272">272</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007-04"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold"><hi rend="smallCaps">summary</hi>
</hi> The type and architecture of bone are considered to affect its load‐bearing capacity and it has been indicated that poorer quality bone is associated with higher implant failure rates. To date, bone classifications have only provided subjective methods for pre‐operative assessment, which can be considered unreliable. The aim of this study was to evaluate variations of the bone density in designated endosseous implant sites using computerized tomography. One hundred and thirty‐one designated implant sites in 72 patients were utilized. Computerized tomography results indicated that bone densities may vary markedly when different areas of a designated implant site are compared. It has been observed that a difference in the bone density exists for the four regions within the oral area, with the anterior mandible yielding mean density values of 944·9 ± 207 Hounsfield units (HU) > anterior maxilla, 715·8 ± 190 HU > posterior mandible, 674·3 ± 227 HU > posterior maxilla and 455·1 ± 122 HU. Computerized tomography may be a useful tool for determining the bone density of interest areas before implant placement, and this valuable information about the bone quality provides dental practitioners to make better treatment planning regarding the implant positions.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">oral implants</term><term xml:id="k2">bone density</term><term xml:id="k3">computerized tomography</term><term xml:id="k4">Hounsfield value</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</doi><issn type="print">0305-182X</issn><issn type="electronic">1365-2842</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JOOR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="04004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jor.2007.34.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="34">34</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2007-04">April 2007</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="5" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOOR1689"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2007-03-16"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2007-03-16"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-20"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="267">267</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="272">272</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr Ilser Turkyilmaz, Ballibaba sokak No: 77/2, 06660 Kucukesat, Ankara, Turkey. E‐mail: <email>ilserturkyilmaz@yahoo.com</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOOR.JOOR1689.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 2 August 2006</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="4"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography</title><title type="shortAuthors">I. TURKYILMAZ <i>et al.</i></title><title type="short">EVALUATION OF BONE DENSITY</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>I.</givenNames><familyName>TURKYILMAZ</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>T. F.</givenNames><familyName>TÖZÜM</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>C.</givenNames><familyName>TUMER</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="TR"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="TR"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="TR"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">oral implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">bone density</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">computerized tomography</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">Hounsfield value</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b><sc>summary</sc> </b> The type and architecture of bone are considered to affect its load‐bearing capacity and it has been indicated that poorer quality bone is associated with higher implant failure rates. To date, bone classifications have only provided subjective methods for pre‐operative assessment, which can be considered unreliable. The aim of this study was to evaluate variations of the bone density in designated endosseous implant sites using computerized tomography. One hundred and thirty‐one designated implant sites in 72 patients were utilized. Computerized tomography results indicated that bone densities may vary markedly when different areas of a designated implant site are compared. It has been observed that a difference in the bone density exists for the four regions within the oral area, with the anterior mandible yielding mean density values of 944·9 ± 207 Hounsfield units (HU) > anterior maxilla, 715·8 ± 190 HU > posterior mandible, 674·3 ± 227 HU > posterior maxilla and 455·1 ± 122 HU. Computerized tomography may be a useful tool for determining the bone density of interest areas before implant placement, and this valuable information about the bone quality provides dental practitioners to make better treatment planning regarding the implant positions.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>EVALUATION OF BONE DENSITY</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">I.</namePart><namePart type="family">TURKYILMAZ</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">T. F.</namePart><namePart type="family">TÖZÜM</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">C.</namePart><namePart type="family">TUMER</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2007-04</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 2 August 2006</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2007</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">4</extent><extent unit="tables">0</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>summary The type and architecture of bone are considered to affect its load‐bearing capacity and it has been indicated that poorer quality bone is associated with higher implant failure rates. To date, bone classifications have only provided subjective methods for pre‐operative assessment, which can be considered unreliable. The aim of this study was to evaluate variations of the bone density in designated endosseous implant sites using computerized tomography. One hundred and thirty‐one designated implant sites in 72 patients were utilized. Computerized tomography results indicated that bone densities may vary markedly when different areas of a designated implant site are compared. It has been observed that a difference in the bone density exists for the four regions within the oral area, with the anterior mandible yielding mean density values of 944·9 ± 207 Hounsfield units (HU) > anterior maxilla, 715·8 ± 190 HU > posterior mandible, 674·3 ± 227 HU > posterior maxilla and 455·1 ± 122 HU. Computerized tomography may be a useful tool for determining the bone density of interest areas before implant placement, and this valuable information about the bone quality provides dental practitioners to make better treatment planning regarding the implant positions.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>oral implants</topic><topic>bone density</topic><topic>computerized tomography</topic><topic>Hounsfield value</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0305-182X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JOOR</identifier><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>34</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>267</start><end>272</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-T8XVVMFL-L</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01689.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JOOR1689</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 006404 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 006404 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:C9397B25AB311A5844B3B5304C7E3CE5D78AC79E
|texte= Bone density assessments of oral implant sites using computerized tomography
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |