Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/348472414
CITATIONS READS
0 42
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Comparison of histological, clinical and through imaging examinations evaluations of bone quality of maxillomandibular region for placing dental implants. View
project
All content following this page was uploaded by Valfrido Antonio Pereira-Filho on 03 February 2021.
CLINICAL STUDY
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Volume 00, Number 00, Month 2021 1
Copyright © 2020 Mutaz B. Habal, MD. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
CE: D.C.; SCS-20-01701; Total nos of Pages: 5;
SCS-20-01701
Oliveira et al The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Volume 00, Number 00, Month 2021
Surgical Procedure
The technique to prepare the sites for the installation of the
implants was employed in a standard way and taking into account
the manufacturer’s recommendations. The same experienced sur-
geon performed all surgeries, in order to reduce the chances of
errors among operators. Surgical access was performed by a linear
incision on the ridge with subsequent complete displacement of the
flap to expose the bone tissue. Before starting the perforation, a
bone biopsy was performed with a trephine of 2.5 mm outside
diameter (Maximus, Contagem, MG, Brazil) at 30 rpm. The tre-
phine was always inserted until the same height (8 mm) (Fig. 1).
Shortly after its removal, the bone fragment was washed with
sterile saline and fixed in 4% buffered formaldehyde. The trephine
served as the initial mill for the preparation of the surgical alveolus.
At the time of perforation to install the implants the surgeon was
asked about the bone quality as proposed by L & Z.
Histological Processing
The bone fragments obtained were were submitted to routine FIGURE 2. Histological image of bone biopsy of the anterior region of the
maxilla [(A) 5-fold increase for histometry, (B) 10-fold increase for osteocyte
histological processing. Serial cuts were made in the axial direction count]; histological image of bone biopsy of the posterior region of the maxilla
of the specimen with 6-mm thickness using a microtome (Micron, [(C) 5-fold increase for histometry, (D) 10-fold increase for osteocyte count].
Copyright © 2020 Mutaz B. Habal, MD. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
CE: D.C.; SCS-20-01701; Total nos of Pages: 5;
SCS-20-01701
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Volume 00, Number 00, Month 2021 Bone Quality in the Maxilla and Mandible
RESULTS
Classification by L & Z
The final bone quality obtained by the radiological evaluation
and surgeon’s tactile perception as proposed in the original L & Z
classification is presented in Supplementary Digital Content,
Table 1, http://links.lww.com/SCS/C276. It was observed that
the most frequent bone quality in the posterior region of the maxilla FIGURE 4. Mean and standard deviation of the variable bone tissue according
was the type III (73.33%), and type II (13.33%) and IV (13.33%) to the alveolar region. Different letters indicate statistically different means
bone qualities were observed in only 2 cases each. Type I bone according to the Tukey test (P 0.043).
Oliveira et al The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Volume 00, Number 00, Month 2021
significance (P ¼ 0.006). This means that the older the patient, the perception does not seem to have much interference with bone
higher the L & Z classification score, and the more medullary the classification.18 Nevertheless, in this study, the original L & Z
bone. On the other hand, regarding the histomorphometric (rho ¼ – classification was used, considering the radiographic evaluation and
0.254, P ¼ 0.0085) and osteocytes count (rho ¼ –0.278, P ¼ 0.058), the surgeon’s tactile perception. This is because tactile intraoper-
no statistically significant correlations were observed for the ative perception can add important information about the charac-
women’s age in the present study sample. teristics of bone tissue.19 In addition, the original L & Z
In the male gender, a moderate negative correlation was classification has been shown to be more correlated with the
observed (rho ¼ –0.650, P ¼ 0.016) in the analysis of the correla- micro-CT than the L & Z classification based only on radiographic
tion between age and the L & Z classification, which means the images.7 In addition, in 1999, Trisi and Rao10 verified that tactile
older the patient, the lower the bone quality score and the more perception allows an acceptable differentiation of the type of
cortical the bone. However, regarding the histomorphometric bone quality.
(rho ¼ –0.02, P ¼ 0.949) and osteocytes count (rho ¼ –0.308, In this study, the highest bone quality in the posterior (73.33%)
P ¼ 0.306), no statistically significant correlations were observed and anterior (73.33%) areas of the maxilla was type III and in the
for the men’s age in the present study sample. posterior (53.33%) and anterior areas (60.00%) of the mandible the
type II bone quality was the most observed. Linck et al (2016)20 also
reported that most of the implant insertion areas were of type II or
DISCUSSION III. Another study evaluating bone quality and quantity only in the
According to Oliveira et al (2008),12 alveolar bone quality can be anterior maxillary region showed that type III bone quality was the
extremely variable in any of the maxilla and mandible regions. most frequent in this region (69.7%).21 Similarly, Ribeiro-Rotta
Therefore, preoperative planning is extremely important in order to et al (2014)7 also found higher prevalence of type II and III bone
achieve higher success rates in the long term.16 Much has been quality (58.7%) according to the L & Z classification. However,
discussed regarding the use of CT for implant planning, since this is different bone qualities can be found in the anterior and posterior
considered the gold standard imaging exam for the evaluation of regions of the maxilla and mandible, so individualized evaluation is
bone quality.4,5 However, because of the cost and dose of radiation always very important.12
received by the patient, most professionals still use conventional A pioneering study for the validation of L & Z classification was
radiographs, especially panoramic radiography, and other subjec- done by Ribeiro-Rotta et al (2014),7 comparing the initial stability
tive methods for the assessment of bone quality, such as the L & Z of the implant, L & Z classification and bone biopsies evaluated by
classification.17,18 In addition, the literature lacks studies on such micro-CT. However, the authors emphasized the importance of
matter, such as our study, in which the bone quality of the different other comparative studies of this classification, since it is widely
regions of the maxilla and mandible is evaluated by using the used. The comparison with bone histomorphometry is very impor-
classical L & Z classification and histomorphometry, which is still tant, because although it is not feasible in all in vivo procedures, it is
considered the gold standard method for evaluation of bone quality. still the gold standard for the evaluation of bone quality,7 since it
Besides the maxillomandibular location, others factors can cannot be completely replaced with micro-CT.22,23
interfering in the bone quality, such as: use of drugs, systemic Regarding the histomorphometric analysis, bone fragments were
diseases, gender, and age.5 So much so, that the results obtained removed with the use of a trephine before implant installation.
show in the male gender, a moderate negative correlation was However, although the bone biopsies were always obtained with the
observed (rho ¼ –0.650, P ¼ 0.016) in the analysis of the correla- same trephine, tailor made for this study, the length of bone
tion between age and the L & Z classification and a low positive fragments was not always the same. It is believed that this occurred
correlation between the female gender and the L & Z classification due to the differences in bone microarchitecture of the different
(rho ¼ 0.398; P ¼ 0.006). This means that the older women, the alveolar regions of the maxilla and mandible, as previously empha-
higher the L & Z classification score and the more medullary the sized by authors who used similar methodology.7 In order to avoid
bone and in the men, which means the older the patient, the lower compromising the histological analysis, each specimen was evalu-
the bone quality score and the more cortical the bone. However, in ated in 3 regions (cervical, middle, and apical), so that the entire
the both genders there was no correlation of the age with histologi- extension (cortical and medullary bone) could be evaluated.
cal analysis (P > or ¼ 0.058). Although it is not an applicable feature in the routine clinic,
The most traditional method for evaluation of bone quality is the histometry is considered the gold standard to assess bone qual-
classification proposed by L & Z, in 1985,8 performed by using ity.24,25 Trisi and Rao (1999)10 found a positive correlation between
radiographs associated with the surgeon’s tactile perception. In a the clinical and histomorphometric evaluation of bone quality after
study by Lindh et al (2014),19 in which the knowledge on bone implant insertion in 56 patients, mainly in the differentiation of
quality of Swiss and Brazilian implant specialists was evaluated, bone types I and IV. In the identification between intermediate bone
both groups attested to frequently use the aforementioned classifi- types (II and III), nonsignificant correlation was observed. In
cation. Despite the wide use, this method is subjective and difficult contrast, in this study it was possible to detect statistical differences
to reproduce and therefore little investigated scientifically.1–9 regarding the histometry between the posterior regions of the
Because of this, the evaluations in present study has been done maxilla and the anterior (P ¼ 0.043) and posterior (P ¼ 0.013)
by a single evaluator. Therefore, the intraobserver calibration was regions of the mandible. These results suggest that it was possible
performed to evaluate the bone quality according to L & Z to detect differences in bone quality through histometry not only in
classification based on the panoramic radiographs in order to reduce the extreme bone qualities but also in the intermediate ones. This is
the bias to the maximum. The analysis only started after calculating because, in the posterior maxillary region, the most frequent bone
kappa, which was 0.87, that is, excellent.14 quality was type III (73.33%) although type IV was also observed
According to Linck et al (2016),20 the lack of scientific evidence (13.33%), and in the anterior mandibular region, bone types II
on the use of the L & Z classification is due to the variety of ways (60.00%) and I (40.00%) were observed. However, no significant
the method is used. Although some authors classify bone tissue statistical differences were observed in the histometry of the
based on radiographic evaluation only, others associate the sur- anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla and mandible. It is
geon’s tactile perception. However, the 2 classifications (original believed that this may have occurred because most of the bone
and modified) are strongly correlated and the surgeon’s tactile quality of the anterior and posterior maxillary area consists of type
Copyright © 2020 Mutaz B. Habal, MD. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
CE: D.C.; SCS-20-01701; Total nos of Pages: 5;
SCS-20-01701
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Volume 00, Number 00, Month 2021 Bone Quality in the Maxilla and Mandible
III bone. On the other hand, the bone quality most observed in the 8. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. Tissue
anterior mandibular region was type II and it was the type III for the Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago,
posterior mandibular, followed by type II. Thus, it can be suggested IL: Quintessence; 1985:199–209
that in the sample studied between the posterior and anterior regions 9. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama M, et al. Relationship between the
of the same maxilla there is similarity in bone quality. bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomographic and the
Regarding the osteocyte count, no statistical differences were primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 2012;23:832–
836
observed between the different regions evaluated (P ¼ 02946). 10. Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: clinical-histomorphometric
Hernández-Cortés et al (2014)24 also used osteocyte count as an comparison. Clin Oral Impl Res 1999;10:1–7
indicator to assess bone quality. However, the authors did not find 11. Rozé J, Babu S, Saffarzadeh A, et al. Correlating implant stability to
statistically significant differences in the amount of osteocytes in bone structure. Clin Oral Impl Res 2009;20:1140–1145
the femoral head with osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. Thus, as in 12. Oliveira RCG, Leles CR, Normanha LM, et al. Assesments of trabecular
this study, the authors concluded that osteocyte count is not a good bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral
indicator to assess bone quality. Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:231–238
Thus, the methodology used allowed to conclude that both 13. Ahn SJ, Leesungbok R, Lee SW, et al. Differences in implant stability
methods allowed to detect differences in the bone quality of the associated with various methods of the implant bed: an in vitro study. J
Prosthet Dent 2012;107:366–372
alveolar regions of the maxilla/mandible and that the classification 14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for
by L & Z is a reliable method to evaluate bone quality, since it was categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174
consistent with histomorphometry, considered the gold standard 15. Munro BH. Correlation. In: Munro BH, ed. Statistical Methods for
method for the evaluation of bone quality. Health Care Research. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 2001:223–
243
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 16. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, et al. Biological factors
contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. Success criteria
The authors thank CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci 1998;106:527–251
Higher Education Personnel) and FAPESP (Foundation for 17. Angelopoulos C, Aghaloo T. Imaging technology in implant diagnosis.
Research Support of the State of São Paulo) (Process number: Dent Clin N Am 2011;55:141–158
2014/25253-1). 18. Bruyn HD, Vandeweghe S, Ruyffelaert C, et al. Radiographic
evaluation of moder oral implants with emphasis on crestal bone level
and relevance to peri-implant health. Periodontol 2000 2013;62:256–
REFERENCES 270
1. Turkyilmaz I, Tumer C, Ozbek EN, et al. Relations between the bone 19. Lindh C, Oliveira GHC, Leles CR, et al. Bone quality assessment in
density values from computerized tomographic, and implant stability routine dental implant treatment among Brazilian and Swedish
parameters: a clinical study of 230 regular platform implants. J Clin specialists. Clin Oral Impl Res 2014;25:1004–1009
Periodontol 2007;34:716–722 20. Linck GKSB, Oliveira GHC, Leles CR, et al. The influence of tactile
2. Turkyilmaz I, Aksoy U, Mcglumphy EA. Two alternative surgical perception on classification of bone tissue at dental implant insertion.
techniques for enhancing primary implant stability in the posterior Clin Impl Dent Relat Res 2016;18:601–608
maxilla. A clinical study including bone frequence analysis data. Clin 21. Wakimoto M, Matsumura T, Ueno T, et al. Bone quality and quantity of
Impl Dent Relat Res 2008;10:231–237 the anterior maxillary trabecular bone in dental implant sites. Clin Oral
3. Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, et al. Diagnostic imaging of trabecular Impl Res 2012;23:1314–1319
bone microstructure for oral implants: a literature review. 22. Muller R, Van Campenhout H, Van Damme B, et al. Morphometric
Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:1–5 analysis of human bone biopsies: a quantitative structural comparison of
4. Turkyilmaz I. Clinical and radiological results of patients treateds with histological sections and micro-computed tomography. Bone
two loading protocols for mandibular overdentures on branemark 1998;23:59–66
implants. J Clin Periodontol 2006;33:233–238 23. Chappard D, Retailleau-Gaborit N, Legrand E, et al. Comparison insight
5. Turkyilmaz I, Mcglumphy EA. Influence of bone density on implant bone measurements by histomorphometry and mCT. J Bone Miner Res
stability parameters and implant success a retrospective clinical study. 2005;20:1177–1784
BMC Oral Health 2008;8:1–8 24. Hernández-Cortés P, Monje A, Galindo-Moreno P, et al. An ex vivo
6. Oliveira RCG, Leles RC, Lindh C, et al. Bone tissue microarchitectural model in human femoral heads for histopathological study and
characteristics at dental implants sites. Part I: identification of clinical resonance frequence analysis of dental implant primary stability.
related parameters. Clin Oral Impl Res 2012;23:981–986 Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:1–8
7. Ribeiro-Rotta RF, Oliveira RCG, Dias DR, et al. Bone tissue 25. Oh JS, Kim SG. Clinical study of the relationship between implant
microarchiectural characteristics at dental implant sites part 2: stability measurements using Periotest and Osstell mentor and bone
correlation with bone classification and primary stability. Clin Oral Impl quality assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
Res 2014;25:e47–e53 2012;113:35–40