Citation Information :
Rathod A, Lahiri B, Gupta S. Assessment of Different Methods in Measuring Alveolar Ridge Width Accuracy before Placement of Implant: An In Vivo Study. World J Dent 2021; 12 (6):474-478.
Aim and objective: This study aimed to evaluate the different approaches in measuring alveolar ridge width accurateness before implant placement.
Materials and methods: This study included 30 partially edentulous patients with missing teeth in the age range of 18–50 years needing dental implant prosthetic replacement of the missing teeth. A stent was prepared and the width of the alveolar ridge was estimated employing the following techniques: Group I: Measurement of alveolar ridge width on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) method, group II: Measurement of alveolar ridge width by ridge mapping technique, group III: Measurement of alveolar ridge width by surgical exposure. The data were analyzed statistically using the SPSS Statistics for Windows Software, version 17.0. The significance level was set at 5%.
Results: 3.84 ± 0.20 was the width of the alveolar ridge on CBCT, 3.96 ± 0.44 with ridge mapping, and 3.78 ± 0.16 by direct measurement upon surgical exposure at point 1. The measurements at point 2 on CBCT, by ridge mapping, and on surgical exposure were 6.80 ± 0.26, 7.02 ± 0.98, and 6.68 ± 0.76, respectively. When ridge mapping and surgical exposure methods at both points were compared, the difference between the groups was significant statistically at point 2 with the p value <0.04.
Conclusion: Cone-beam computed tomography and ridge mapping techniques when independently compared with the gold standard surgical exposure system, CBCT was verified to be an extremely specific and sensitive technique to measure the residual alveolar ridge width for dental implant therapy planning.
Clinical significance: Residual ridge resorption following the tooth extraction is an inevitable phenomenon that results in inadequate width of the ridge. Hence, it is essential to measure the physical dimensions of the existing bone as part of the diagnosis and pre-surgical planning before implant placement. The success of the dental implant depends on the significant requirement of dimensions of the existing bone.
Simon BI, Von Hagen S, Deasy MJ, et al. Changes in alveolar bone height and width following ridge augmentation using bone graft and membranes. J Periodontol 2000;71(11):1774–1791. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.11.1774.
Chugh A, Bhisnoi P, Kalra D, et al. Comparative evaluation of three different methods for evaluating alveolar ridge dimension prior to implant placement: an in vivo study. J Dent Implant 2013;3(2):101–110. DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.118872.
Bousquet F, Bousquet P, Vazquez L. Transtomography for implant placement guidance in non-invasive surgical procedures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36(5):229–233. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/91082519.
Ghali SR, Katli G, Shahbaz S, et al. Cone beam computed tomography: a boon for maxillofacial imaging. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2017;29(1):30–34. DOI: 10.4103/jiaomr.JIAOMR_89_16.
Mello LA, Garcia RR, Leles JL, et al. Impact of cone-beam computed tomography on implant planning and on prediction of implant size. Braz Oral Res 2014;28(1):46–53. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242013005000029.
Chatzistavrianou D, Wilson PH, Taylor P. A guide to implant dentistry part 1: treatment planning. Dent Update 2019;46(5):412–425. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2019.46.5.412.
Dave BH, Sutaria S, Mehta S, et al. A comparative study of three different methods for evaluating width of alveolar ridge prior to implant placement: an in vivo study. Int J Oral Care Res 2017;5(1):53–60. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10051-0082.
Cortes AR, Gomes AF, Tucunduva MJ, et al. Evaluation of linear tomography and cone beam computed tomography accuracy in measuring ridge bone width for planning implant placement. Braz J Oral Sci 2012;11(2):116–119.
Chen LC, Lundgren T, Hallström H, et al. Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. J Periodontol 2008;79(3):401–405. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2008.070021.
Castro-Ruiz CT, Noriega J, Guerrero ME. Validity of ridge mapping and computed tomography in dental implant therapy. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2015;19(3):290–293. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.154189.
Luk LC, Pow EH, Li TK, et al. Comparison of ridge mapping and cone beam computed tomography for planning dental implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(1):70–74.
Abdel-Wahed NA, Hamdy RM, Abdel-Latif ZA. Measurements of jaw bones for implant site assessment using cone-beam computed tomography: interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Egypt J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;3(2):62–69. DOI: 10.1097/01.OMX.0000418694.73046.c1.
Ten Bruggenkate CM, de Rijcke TB, Kraaijenhagen HA, et al. Ridge mapping. Implant Dent 1994;3(3):179–182. DOI: 10.1097/00008505-199409000-00008.
Perez LA, Brooks SL, Wang HL, et al. Comparison of linear tomography and direct ridge mapping for the determination of edentulous ridge dimensions in human cadavers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99(6):748–754. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004. 10.023.
Allen F, Smith DG. An assessment of the accuracy of ridge mapping in planning implant therapy for the anterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(1):34–38. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011001034.x.
Traxler M, Ulm C, Solar P, et al. Sonographic measurement versus mapping for determination of residual ridge width. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(3):358–361. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90246-7.
Goulet SV, Fortin T, Thierry A. Accuracy of linear measurement provided by cone beam computed tomography to assess bone quantity in the posterior maxilla: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10(4):226–230. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00083.x.