Ambiguity in bone tissue characteristics as presented in studies on dental implant planning and placement: a systematic review
Ribeiro-Rotta RF, Lindh C, Pereira AC, Rohlin M.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. xx, 2010; 000–000.
Abstract
Objectives:  To survey  definitions of bone tissue characteristics and methods of assessing them  in studies of dental implant planning and placement.
Material and methodology:   Three databases were searched using specified indexing terms. Three  reviewers selected from the titles and retrieved abstracts in accordance  with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Descriptions of bone tissue  characteristics (bone quality, density and quantity) used before or  during dental implant placement were searched for and categorized.
Results:   The search yielded 488 titles. One hundred and fort-nine publications  were selected and read in full text. One hundred and eight were  considered relevant. There were many different definitions and  classification systems for bone tissue characteristics and examination  protocols. Approximately two-third of the included publications reported  the Lekholm & Zarb classification system for bone quality and  quantity. However, only four studies implemented the Lekholm & Zarb  system as originally proposed. A few publications described bone quality  in accordance with the Misch or Trisi and Rao classifications systems.  Assessment methods were often described only briefly (or not at all in  one-fifth of the publications). Only one study presented the diagnostic  accuracy of the assessment method, while only two presented observer  performance.
Conclusion:  The  differing definitions and classification systems applied to dental  implant planning and placement make it impossible to compare the results  of various studies, particularly with respect to whether bone quality  or quantity affect treatment outcomes. A consistent classification  system for bone tissue characteristics is needed, as well as an  appropriate description of bone tissue assessment methods, their  diagnostic accuracy and observer performance.
Comments