Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology| Volume 126, ISSUE 5, P432-438, November 2018

Download started.


Accuracy of detecting and measuring buccal bone thickness adjacent to titanium dental implants—a cone beam computed tomography in vitro study


      The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of detecting and measuring buccal bone thickness (BBT) adjacent to titanium implants in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images.

      Study Design

      Titanium implants (1, 2, or 3), abutments, and metal–ceramic crowns were inserted into 40 bone blocks with various BBTs. CBCT images were acquired in various settings: Voxel sizes (0.2 and 0.13 mm) and reconstruction section thicknesses (2.0 and 5.0 mm) were assessed by 3 examiners. True BBT was measured in digital photographs of the bone blocks. Buccal bone detection was evaluated by sensitivity and specificity. BBT was evaluated by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the true and the CBCT measurements and by calculating the difference between the true measurement and the CBCT measurement (Di-BBT).


      Detection of buccal bone exhibited high sensitivity (0.86–1) and low specificity (0.14–1). More implants in the field of view, large voxel size, and thick image reconstruction sections had a negative impact on buccal bone detection. ANOVA showed statistically significantly larger BBT for the CBCT measurements in all settings (1.07–1.21 mm) compared with the true measurements (0.85 mm). Di-BBT was mostly within 0.5 mm.


      BBT adjacent to titanium implants is overestimated when evaluated on CBCT cross-sectional images.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Moraschini V
        • Poubel LA
        • Ferreira VF
        • Barboza Edos S
        Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44: 377-388
        • Albrektsson T
        • Zarb G
        • Worthington P
        • Eriksson AR
        The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986; 1: 11-25
        • Weber HP
        • Crohin CC
        • Fiorellini JP
        A 5-year prospective clinical and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11: 144-153
        • Spray JR
        • Black CG
        • Morris HF
        • Ochi S
        The influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering.
        Ann Periodontol. 2000; 5: 119-128
        • Grunder U
        • Gracis S
        • Capelli M
        Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics.
        Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005; 25: 113-119
        • Tomasi C
        • Sanz M
        • Cecchinato D
        • et al.
        Bone dimensional variations at implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: a multilevel multivariate analysis.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 30-36
        • Benavides E
        • Rios HF
        • Ganz SD
        • et al.
        Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report.
        Implant Dent. 2012; 21: 78-86
        • Tyndall DA
        • Price JB
        • Tetradis S
        • Ganz SD
        • Hildebolt C
        • Scarfe WC
        Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012; 113: 817-826
        • Benic GI
        • Elmasry M
        • Hammerle CH
        Novel digital imaging techniques to assess the outcome in oral rehabilitation with dental implants: a narrative review.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 86-96
        • McAllister BS
        • Eshraghi VT
        Commentary: Cone-beam computed tomography: an essential technology for management of complex periodontal and implant cases.
        J Periodontol. 2017; 88: 937-938
        • Mandelaris GA
        • Scheyer ET
        • Evans M
        • et al.
        American Academy of Periodontology best evidence consensus statement on selected oral applications for cone-beam computed tomography.
        J Periodontol. 2017; 88: 939-945
        • Rios HF
        • Borgnakke WS
        • Benavides E
        The use of cone-beam computed tomography in management of patients requiring dental implants: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review.
        J Periodontol. 2017; 88: 946-959
        • Project S.
        Radiation Protection n° 172: Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology.
        European Commission Directorate-General for Energy, Luxembourg2012
        • Spin-Neto R
        • Matzen LH
        • Schropp L
        • Gotfredsen E
        • Wenzel A
        Movement characteristics in young patients and the impact on CBCT image quality.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016; 4520150426
        • Horner K
        • Jacobs R
        • Schulze R
        Dental CBCT equipment and performance issues.
        Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2013; 153: 212-218
        • Schulze R
        • Heil U
        • Gross D
        • et al.
        Artefacts in CBCT: a review.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011; 40: 265-273
        • Razavi T
        • Palmer RM
        • Davies J
        • Wilson R
        • Palmer PJ
        Accuracy of measuring the cortical bone thickness adjacent to dental implants using cone beam computed tomography.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 718-725
        • Shiratori LN
        • Marotti J
        • Yamanouchi J
        • Chilvarquer I
        • Contin I
        • Tortamano-Neto P
        Measurement of buccal bone volume of dental implants by means of cone-beam computed tomography.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 797-804
        • Gonzalez-Martin O
        • Oteo C
        • Ortega R
        • Alandez J
        • Sanz M
        • Veltri M
        Evaluation of peri-implant buccal bone by computed tomography: an experimental study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 950-955
        • Kamburoglu K
        • Murat S
        • Kilic C
        • et al.
        Accuracy of CBCT images in the assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant defects: effect of field of view.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 4320130332
        • Fienitz T
        • Schwarz F
        • Ritter L
        • Dreiseidler T
        • Becker J
        • Rothamel D
        Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri-implant bone defect regeneration: a histologically controlled study in dogs.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 882-887
        • Wang D
        • Kunzel A
        • Golubovic V
        • et al.
        Accuracy of peri-implant bone thickness and validity of assessing bone augmentation material using cone beam computed tomography.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1601-1609
        • Ritter L
        • Elger MC
        • Rothamel D
        • et al.
        Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 4320130088
        • Cho YB
        • Moon SJ
        • Chung CH
        • Kim HJ
        Resorption of labial bone in maxillary anterior implant.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2011; 3: 85-89
        • Degidi M
        • Nardi D
        • Daprile G
        • Piattelli A
        Buccal bone plate in the immediately placed and restored maxillary single implant: a 7-year retrospective study using computed tomography.
        Implant Dent. 2012; 21: 62-66
        • Vera C
        • De Kok IJ Chen W
        • Reside G
        • Tyndall D
        • Cooper LF
        Evaluation of post-implant buccal bone resorption using cone beam computed tomography: a clinical pilot study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 1249-1257
        • Roe P
        • Kan JY
        • Rungcharassaeng K
        • Caruso JM
        • Zimmerman G
        • Mesquida J
        Horizontal and vertical dimensional changes of peri-implant facial bone following immediate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: a 1-year cone beam computed tomography study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 393-400
        • Schropp L
        • Wenzel A
        • Spin-Neto R
        • Stavropoulos A
        Fate of the buccal bone at implants placed early, delayed, or late after tooth extraction analyzed by cone beam CT: 10-year results from a randomized, controlled, clinical study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 492-500
        • Timock AM
        • Cook V
        • McDonald T
        • et al.
        Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140: 734-744
        • El Nahass H
        • Naiem SN
        Analysis of the dimensions of the labial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: e57-e61
        • Zekry A
        • Wang R
        • Chau AC
        • Lang NP
        Facial alveolar bone wall width—a cone-beam computed tomography study in Asians.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 194-206
        • Patcas R
        • Muller L
        • Ullrich O
        • Peltomaki T
        Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141: 41-50
        • Liedke GS
        • Spin-Neto R
        • da Silveira HE
        • Schropp L
        • Stavropoulos A
        • Wenzel A
        Factors affecting the possibility to detect buccal bone condition around dental implants using cone beam computed tomography.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1082-1088
        • Gotfredsen E
        • Kragskov J
        • Wenzel A
        Development of a system for craniofacial analysis from monitor-displayed digital images.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999; 28: 123-126
        • Schropp L
        • Alyass NS
        • Wenzel A
        • Stavropoulos A
        Validity of wax and acrylic as soft-tissue simulation materials used in in vitro radiographic studies.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41: 686-690
        • Brullmann D
        • Schulze RK
        Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications—what do we know today.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 4420140204
        • Kataoka ML
        • Hochman MG
        • Rodriguez EK
        • Lin PJ
        • Kubo S
        • Raptopolous VD
        A review of factors that affect artifact from metallic hardware on multi-row detector computed tomography.
        Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2010; 39: 125-136
        • Pauwels R
        • Stamatakis H
        • Bosmans H
        • et al.
        Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 94-99
        • Liedke GS
        • Spin-Neto R
        • Vizzotto MB
        • da Silveira PF
        • Wenzel A
        • da Silveira HE
        Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography sections with various thicknesses for detecting misfit between the tooth and restoration in metal-restored teeth.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015; 120: e131-e137
        • Kamburoglu K
        • Kolsuz E
        • Murat S
        • Eren H
        • Yuksel S
        • Paksoy CS
        Assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant and periodontal defects using a cone beam CT system with and without the application of metal artefact reduction mode.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 4220130176
        • Kuhl S
        • Zurcher S
        • Zitzmann NU
        • Filippi A
        • Payer M
        • Dagassan-Berndt D
        Detection of peri-implant bone defects with different radiographic techniques—a human cadaver study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 529-534
        • Sancho-Puchades M
        • Hammerle CH
        • Benic GI
        In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconium dioxide implants in cone-beam computed tomography.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1222-1228
        • Rasko Z
        • Nagy L
        • Radnai M
        • Piffko J
        • Barath Z
        Assessing the accuracy of cone-beam computerized tomography in measuring thinning oral and buccal bone.
        J Oral Implantol. 2016; 42: 311-314
        • Spin-Neto R
        • Mudrak J
        • Matzen LH
        • Christensen J
        • Gotfredsen E
        • Wenzel A
        Cone beam CT image artefacts related to head motion simulated by a robot skull: visual characteristics and impact on image quality.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 4232310645
        • Wood R
        • Sun Z
        • Chaudhry J
        • et al.
        Factors affecting the accuracy of buccal alveolar bone height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 143: 353-363