Share Page:

Volume 24 , Issue 2
March/April 2011

Pages 147–154

Ultramicroscopy of Bone at Oral Implant Sites: A Comparison of ED and Control Patients. Part 1—Defining the Protocol

Patcharawan Silthampitag, DDS/Iven Klineberg, MDS, BSc, PhD, FRACDS, FDSRCS/Allan S. Jones, BAppSc, PhD/Bruce Austin, BDS, MDSc, FRACDS (OMS)/Kwan Yat Zee, BDS, MDSc, Odont Dr, FCDSHK/Christine Wallace, BDS, MDS, FRACDS/Stefan Scholz, DDS, PhD Dr Med Dent/Anthony Naim, BDS, MBBS, FRACDS, FRACDS (OMS)/Khaled Zoud, BDS, BMed, FRACDS (OMS)

PMID: 21479283

Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop a protocol to analyze the microstructure of mandibular and maxillary bone in association with implant placement in ectodermal dysplasia (ED) and anodontia conditions compared to patients not suffering from such conditions. Materials and Methods: This study was not additionally invasive, since the bone harvesting was completed at the time and site of implant placement. Bone samples were allocated into two groups (ED and control patients) and specified by the site of bone harvesting. Microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) analysis at 5-µm resolution was conducted on each bone sample. Computer analysis applying specialized CT analysis and software allowed evaluation of the three-dimensional microstructure of alveolar and basal bone samples for comparison of structural parameters. Results: Ten bone samples (five alveolar and five basal) were harvested. Preliminary data confirmed the structural features and significant differences between alveolar and basal bone. Basal bone had greater absolute and percent bone volume, greater bone surface, and a lower trabecular bone pattern factor than alveolar bone. Conclusion: Preliminary data were derived from bone harvested from both the maxilla and mandible of control patients, while bone samples from ED patients were harvested from only the anterior mandible. Further bone samples will provide more data on whether broader areas of bone harvesting, age, or sex affect the quality and quantity of the bone and influence implant treatment outcomes. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:147–154.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us