Abstract
Horizontal bone loss after tooth extraction is a common finding that demands bone reconstruction in various cases. The aim of this study was to assess the horizontal alveolar status in partially and completely edentulous patients using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). In total, 1516 CBCT scans of 1404 adult patients were analyzed. Assessment of the images was performed in accordance with the previously published horizontal alveolar change (HAC) classification, which categorizes horizontal bone defects into four classes: HAC 1, HAC 2, HAC 3 and HAC 4 (from the least severe to the most severe condition). Analysis of 1048 scans from partially edentulous patients presented a distribution of 63.55%, 22.14%, 13.36% and 0.95% in HAC 1, HAC 2, HAC 3 and HAC 4, respectively. Analysis of 468 scans from completely edentulous patient images presented a distribution of 19.87%, 28.63%, 41.67% and 9.83% in HAC 1, HAC 2, HAC 3 and HAC 4, respectively. Based on these results, as in HAC 4, no cancellous bone was found between the cortical buccal and lingual/palatal bone plates, it seems reasonable to state that the absence of cancellous bone is higher in completely edentulous patients than in partially edentulous patients. Therefore, the absence of cancellous bone seems to be higher in completely edentulous than in partially edentulous patients.
Highlights
In completely and partially edentulous patients, rehabilitation using dental implants is a well documented treatment in various clinical situations
The analysis of 1048 scans from partially edentulous patients presented a distribution of 63.55%, 22.14%, 11.55% and 2.6% in horizontal alveolar change (HAC) 1, HAC 2, HAC 3 and HAC 4, respectively
Analysis of 468 scans from completely edentulous patient presented a distribution of 19.87%, 28.63%, 41.67% and 9.83% in HAC 1, HAC 2, HAC 3 and HAC 4, respectively
Summary
In completely and partially edentulous patients, rehabilitation using dental implants is a well documented treatment in various clinical situations. Not all patients should be submitted to this type of rehabilitation, because of the deficiency of bone tissue that allows implant placement.[1] Despite this issue, it seems reasonable to state that it’s possible to correct most of these bone deficiencies, broadening the range of patients eligible for implant-supported rehabilitation. For this purpose, surgical techniques that use donor sites that allow bone gain (i.e., autogenous grafts) or the use of bone substitutes (e.g., homogeneous, xenogeneic or synthetic grafts) are been used.[2].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
