World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE S2 ( Supplementary Issue 2, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Differences in the Assessment of Dental Implant Osseointegration with Changes in Orthopantomography Exposure Settings on the Rabbit Tibia

Lindia Ayu Hafshah, Azhari Azhari, Farina Pramanik

Keywords : Bone density, Dental implant, Fractal dimension, Orthopantomography, Osseointegration

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2134

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-12-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: This study investigates the differences in assessing dental implant osseointegration with changes in orthopantomography (OPG) exposure setting in the rabbit tibia. Materials and methods: This research design is quasi-experimental. The sample of this research is 18 panoramic radiographs of rabbit tibia bone that had been installed with a dental implant for 28 days with different exposure settings and were divided into two groups of settings based on exposure time (14 and 16 seconds). Data were obtained by measuring bone density and fractal dimension using ImageJ 2.3.0 software. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test, independent t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, and post hoc test at p-value < 0.05. Using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 21.0 software. Results: The results of the p-value analysis showed an average image quality of 5.33 (p-value > 0.05), the largest bone density value was 0.1827, and the largest fractal dimension value was 0.7990 (p-value < 0.05). Conclusion: There is a difference in bone density and fractal dimension in the 14 and 16 seconds exposure setting variation groups. Clinical significance: Differences in assessing dental implant osseointegration in different OPG exposure setting groups can obtain the best exposure setting to evaluate dental implant osseointegration.

PDF Share
  1. Dieguez-Pereira M, Brizuela-Velasco A, Chavarri-Prado D, et al. The utility of implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis material for implant micromovement and peri-implant bone microstrain: a study in rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020;35(6):1132–1140. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.8094
  2. Vairo G, Sannino G, Baggi L, et al. Comparative evaluation of osseointegrated dental implants based on the platform-switching concept: influence of diameter, length, thread shape, and in-bone positioning depth on stress-based performance. Comput Math Methods Med 2013;2013:250929. DOI: 10.1155/2013/250929
  3. Stadlinger B, Pourmand P, Locher MC, et al. Systematic review of animal models for the study of implant integration, assessing the influence of material, surface and design. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39(12):28–36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2011.01835.x
  4. Stübinger S, Dard M. The rabbit as experimental model for research in implant dentistry and related tissue regeneration. J Invest Surg 2013;26(5):266–282. DOI: 10.3109/08941939.2013.778922
  5. Matos GRM, Godoy MF. Factors associated with long-term stability of dental implants. Full Dent Sci 2015;6(22):194–198.
  6. Swami V, Vijayaraghavan V, Swami V. Current trends to measure implant stability. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16(2):124–130. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.176539
  7. Alghamdi HS. Methods to improve osseointegration of dental implants in low quality (type-IV) bone: an overview. J Funct Biomater 2018;9(1):7. DOI: 10.3390/jfb9010007
  8. Smeets R, Stadlinger B, Schwarz F, et al. Impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration. BioMed Res Int 2016;2016:6285620. DOI: 10.1155/2016/6285620
  9. Geiger M, Blem G, Ludwig A. Evaluation of imageJ for relative bone density measurement and clinical application. J Oral Health Craniofac Sci 2016;1(1):12–21. DOI: 10.29328/journal.johcs.1001002
  10. Soylu E, Coşgunarslan A, Çelebi S, et al. Fractal analysis as a useful predictor for determining osseointegration of dental implant? A retrospective study. Int J Implant Dent 2021;7(1):14. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00296-0
  11. Chang PC, Giannobile WV. Functional assessment of dental implant osseointegration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2012;32(5):541. DOI: 10.11607/prd.00.1093
  12. Naik SB, Patil SN, Kamble SD, et al. Reliability of third molar development for age estimation by radiographic examination (Demirjian's method). J Clin Diagnostic Res 2014;8(5):ZC25–ZC28. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8160.4361
  13. Di Murro B, Papi P, Passarelli PC, et al. Attitude in radiographic post-operative assessment of dental implants among Italian dentists: a cross-sectional survey. Antibiotics 2020;9(5):234. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9050234
  14. Salim HA, Naser AI, Delemi ZH. Assessment of peri implant osteal changes by radiographic evaluation using standard orthopantomograph and periapical view a retrospective study. Rafidain Dent J 2018;18(1):59–66. DOI: 10.33899/rden.2018.160842
  15. Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol 2014;6(10):794–807. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i10.794
  16. Belgin AC, Serindere G. Evaluation of error types and quality on panoramic radiography. Int Dent Res 2019;9(3):99–104. DOI: 10.5577/intdentres.2019.vol9.no3.2
  17. Izzetti R, Nisi M, Aringhieri G, et al. Basic knowledge and new advances in panoramic radiography imaging techniques: a narrative review on what dentists and radiologists should know. Appl Sci 2021;11(17):7858. DOI: 10.3390/app11177858
  18. Dannewitz B, Hassfeld S, Eickholz P, et al. Effect of dose reduction in digital dental panoramic radiography on image quality. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2002;31(1):50–55. DOI: 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600651
  19. Kaeppler G, Dietz K, Reinert S. Diagnostic accuracy of in vitro panoramic radiographs depending on the exposure. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2007;36(2):68–74. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/53852973
  20. Kjelle E, Chilanga C. The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers’ reasons for rejecting images. Insights Imaging 2022;13(1):36. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-022-01169-9
  21. Stabulas-Savage JJ. Frommer's Radiology for The Dental Professional-e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.
  22. Villar CC, Huynh-Ba G, Mills MP, et al. Wound Healing around Dental Implants. Oral Wound Healing: Cell Biology and Clinical Management 2012; p. 287.
  23. Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, et al. Effect of implant thread geometry on secondary stability, bone density, and bone-to-implant contact: a biomechanical and histological analysis. Implant Dent 2015;24(4):384–391. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000269
  24. Celik S, Keilig L, Hasan I, et al. Simulation of bone healing processes around dental implants during the healing period. In: 8th World Congress of Biomechanics; 2018.
  25. Javed F, Ahmed HB, Crespi R, et al. Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: factors of influence and evaluation. Interv Med Appl Sci 2013;5(4):162–167. DOI: 10.1556/IMAS.5.2013.4.3
  26. Barot AA, Chaturvedi MK, Butala PB, et al. A study on changes in image quality with dose reduction in digital panoramic radiographs. J Int Oral Health 2017;9(4):174–179. DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_138_17
  27. Bushong SC, Facmp SF. Radiologic science for technologists e-book: physics, biology, and protection. Mosby 2020.
  28. Lampignano J, Kendrick LE. Bontrager's Textbook of Radiographic Positioning and Related Anatomy-e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017.
  29. Ramadhan AZ, Sitam S, Azhari A, et al. Gambaran kualitas dan mutu radiograf. JRDI 2020;3(3):43–48. DOI: 10.32793/jrdi.v3i3.445
  30. Poleti ML, Fernandes TMF, Teixeira RC, et al. Analysis of the reproducibility of the gray values and noise of a direct digital radiography system. Braz Oral Res 2015;29:S1806-83242015000100259. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2015.vol29.0062
  31. Baksi BG, Fidler A. Image resolution and exposure time of digital radiographs affects fractal dimension of periapical bone. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(5):1507–1510. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0639-3
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.