Evaluation of Bone-Implant Integration: Efficiency and Precision of 3 Methods
Paul J. McMillan, PhD, Jay Kim, PhD, Steve Garrett, DDS, MS, Max Crigger, DDS, MS
PMID: 10531734
Computer-assisted planimetry, computer-assisted lineal analysis, and point-counting stereology have been compared with respect to their reproducibility and the time required to analyze bone-implant integration. Sections of 6 threaded dental implants selected from a bone augmentation experiment for their wide range of new bone formation were analyzed by each method 3 times. The bone density and percentage of osseous integration were evaluated at 4 sites around each implant section. It was found that computer-assisted planimetry demonstrated a modest but significantly greater variance (P < .05) in bone density estimates when compared to the computer-assisted lineal analysis and point-counting methods. Computer-assisted planimetry requires a different method of measuring each parameter and separate fields of view to evaluate fields distant from the implant. However, this can all be accomplished with line probes, as in computer-assisted lineal analysis, which extend from the implant surface into the surrounding alveolar bone. Whereas computer-assisted planimetry requires a separate identification of the perimeter of each field to be analyzed (next to and distant from the implant), computer-assisted lineal analysis allows expansion of the field to be evaluated without creating a new field of view. Also, following a limited learning curve, both point-counting and computer-assisted lineal analysis required less time to complete than did computer-assisted planimetry. (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:631–638) Key words: bone density, histomorphometry, osseointegration
| © 2013 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc |
JOMI Home Current Issue Ahead of Print Archive Author Guidelines About |
Accepted Manuscripts Submission Form Submit Reprints Permission Advertising |
Quintessence Home Terms of Use Privacy Policy About Us Contact Us Help |
