Does the outcome of graft materials at dental implant sites differ between patients with normal and compromised bone health?

Abstract

To assess the outcome of bone graft material at alveolar bone augmentation sites combined with dental implants in postmenopausal women with compromised bone health by evaluating cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans at multiple time points. CBCT scans were analyzed on 55 postmenopausal women with compromised bone health status to determine the fate of alveolar bone augmentation. CBCT scans were taken immediately after surgery and 9 and 24 months post-operatively. The patient's medication regimens and durations were recorded, and the pixel intensity value (PIV) was measured and standardized using scoring criteria and visual assessment. Statistical analyses included two-sample t-tests for continuous variables and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. Among the normal patients, 73% received a grade 2 visual score, and 27% received a grade 1 visual score. After 24 months, 45% of patients received a grade 2 score, and 27% received a grade 3 score. In the osteoporotic group receiving medication, 77% of participants received a grade 1 visual score at the 9-month postoperative evaluation, while 23% received a grade 2 score. At the 24-month assessment, 55% of patients received a grade 1 score, 41% received a grade 2 score, and only 5% received a grade 3 score. Notably, although the graft material did not remodel into native bone, it was a scaffold for implants in controlled osteoporotic patients. The study's results show that the pixel intensity values of particulate graft materials are similar across the three different time points, suggesting that the graft material's pixel intensity value remains constant in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The study's limitations include a small sample size and a restricted 24-month follow-up period. This limited time frame may need to capture long-term changes or variations in graft materials adequately. Future research should include a larger sample size and have a longer follow-up duration to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the change in graft materials between patients with normal and compromised bone health.