Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/10582943
Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction:
A clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study
CITATIONS READS
1,058 14,912
4 authors, including:
Lars Schropp
Aarhus University
39 PUBLICATIONS 1,996 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Lars Schropp on 30 May 2014.
Fig 2a Linear radiographic measurements Fig 2b Image taken immediately after Fig 2c Image taken 12 months after
from reference line (#2) to crestal bone lev- tooth extraction (IBase). The tooth contour tooth extraction (I12). C = most apically sit-
els: image taken before tooth extraction has been transferred to this image. Dt = uated point between Mx and Dx.
(IBX). The contour of the tooth (#3) has been mesial aspect of tooth distal to extraction
drawn in this image. #1 = ROC. site; Mt = distal aspect of tooth mesial to
extraction site; Mx = level of alveolar bone
crest at mesial aspect of extraction socket;
Dx = level of alveolar bone crest at distal
aspect of extraction socket.
site were assessed by measuring has been described in more detail alveolar bone crest at the mesial
probing pocket depths and clinical elsewhere.18 The bite index was (Mx) and distal (Dx) aspects of the
attachment levels at the tooth sur- saved for use at all visits. All radi- socket of the extracted tooth was
faces mesial and distal to the extrac- ographs were digitized with a reso- measured. The recordings were car-
tion site using a periodontal probe lution of 300 dpi by a flatbed scan- ried out in the images taken at base-
(Hu-Friedy). The measurements were ner with a transparency module line (IBase) and in those taken 12
performed buccally, in the center, (Hewlett Packard). months following tooth extraction
and orally at each surface. (I12). In image I12, the most apically
situated point between Mx and Dx
Linear measurements on was recorded (C) (Fig 2c). For assess-
Radiographic procedure radiographs ing the bone levels at the extraction
site in these images, the position of
Standardized intraoral radiographs Linear measurements in the digitized the extracted tooth was determined
(Ektaspeed Plus film, Eastman radiographs (Fig 2) were performed by drawing a contour of the tooth in
Kodak) were obtained at the time by means of a computer program the image taken before extraction
points described above. To achieve designed for linear and angular (IBX) (Fig 2a). The “tooth contour”
reproducible periapical images, the analyses (PorDiosW, Institute of was then transferred to images IBase
paralleling technique was used with Orthodontic Computer Sciences).19 and I12 using the computer program
an occlusal bite index prepared from Bone levels at the mesial aspect for subtraction radiography. The ref-
silicone material (President putty, of the tooth distal (Dt) as well as at erence line was drawn in IBX and
Coltène) and fixed to a Trollbiten film the distal aspect of the tooth mesial transferred in a similar manner. All
holder (Trollhatteplast). After place- (Mt) to the extraction site—in cases linear measurements were per-
ment in the patient’s mouth, the bite where these teeth were present— formed twice by the same investi-
block was attached to the cone of were determined by measuring the gator, and the correlation between
the radiographic unit by means of a distance from a reference line to the the first and second recordings was
metal muff fitting the outer contour bone level at these sites (Figs 2b evaluated by means of Spearman’s
of the cone. This recording device and 2c). Further, the level of the rho test.
To assess the level of bone heal- gray level of less than 128 and value within the interval mean value
ing at the extraction site, the appears dark. This definition is based ± 2 SD for the ROC were defined
changes of the bone level at the on similar radiographic density and as unchanged. Pixel values above
mesial and distal aspects of the geometry in the images to be sub- this level corresponded to bone
socket from baseline to 12 months tracted, and on the absence of phys- gain, and values below corre-
after tooth extraction were calcu- ical background noise. sponded to bone loss. For better
lated. In addition, the bone level at In the clinical situation, however, visualization, bone gain in the ROI
the mesial and distal aspects of the thresholds for the pixel values must was colored blue, and bone loss was
extraction socket was compared be determined to compensate for colored red.
with that of the adjacent teeth. For differences in the recording and pro- IBase was subtracted from the fol-
these calculations, the mean of the cessing of the radiographs, and to low-up images taken 3, 6, and 12
first and the second measures was take physical noise into account.20 months following extraction (I3, I6,
used. The Wilcoxon matched pairs These thresholds were related to the I 12), resulting in the subtraction
signed rank test was used to evalu- mean pixel value and the standard images I3 – IBase, I6 – IBase, and I12 –
ate differences between bone level deviation (SD) of the histogram dis- IBase (Figs 3c to 3e). The statistics of
changes over time, and between tribution of the pixels in a “region of the ROI in these images were
bone levels at the extraction site and control” (ROC), thereby defining exported to the statistical program
adjacent teeth. when pixel changes should be (SPSS, version 10.0, SPSS), includ-
regarded as bone gain and loss, ing the mean gray value and the size
respectively, in the “region of inter- (using number of pixels as the unit)
Subtraction radiography est” (ROI). of the gain, loss, and unchanged
areas. The significance of the differ-
The scanned radiographs were • ROI corresponded to the alveo- ences of the mean gray values and
imported into a semiautomated sub- lus of the extracted tooth. It was the size of the areas over time was
traction program, X-PoseIt (version determined by drawing a con- tested by the Wilcoxon matched
3.01, Torben Jørgensen), and the tour of the root(s) in the image pairs signed rank test. For all statis-
subtraction process was performed taken before extraction (Fig 3a). tical tests (both clinical and radi-
on an IBM-compatible Pentium PC. The ROI could then be trans- ographic data), the level of signifi-
For alignment of the images, four to ferred to the baseline image (Fig cance was set to = .05.
nine reference points were defined 3b). The area was subsequently
in each image (Figs 3a and 3b), extended so that lamina dura
allowing geometric differences to and the septum in cases of mul-
be corrected to some extent using tirooted teeth were included in
algorithms for scaling, translation, ROI.
and rotation. The program operates • ROC was an area expected not
with a dynamic range of 256 gray to be involved in bone changes.
shades. By definition, all pixels in a The area was drawn as large as
perfect subtraction image of a site possible in IBX in a region of tra-
without bone changes would have a becular bone and transferred to
mean gray level of 128. Bone gain is IBase.
defined as pixels with a gray level of
more than 128 and appears bright in Both regions were automatically
the subtraction image, whereas transferred to the subtraction image
bone loss is defined as pixels with a by the program. Pixels with a gray
Fig 3a Subtraction radiography: image Fig 3b Image taken immediately after Fig 3c Resulting subtraction images.
taken before tooth extraction (IBX). The tooth extraction (IBase). The ROI has been Blue and red areas in the ROI illustrate
contour of the tooth (#2, ROI) has been transferred to this image. bone gain and loss, respectively: I3 – IBase.
drawn in this image. #1 = ROC.
Table 1 Model measurements of mean changes of width and height of alveolar process (mm)*
Region Baseline–3 mo 3–6 mo 6–12 mo Baseline–12 mo
All regions
Height buccally –0.1 [–0.3; –0.9/0.6] 0.2 [0.2; –0.2/0.5] 0.3 [0.3; 0.0/0.5]† 0.4 [0.1; –0.6/1.0]
Height orally –0.8 [–0.8; –1.3/–0.5]† –0.1 [0.1; –0.4/0.4] 0.1 [–0.1; –0.3/0.4] –0.8 [–0.7; –1.4/–0.2]†
Width –3.8 [–3.4; –5.2/–2.3]† –1.3 [–0.9; –2.2/–0.4]† –1.0 [–0.8; –1.3/–0.3]† –6.1 (12.0–5.9) [–5.9; –7.7/–4.7]†
Premolar
Height buccally –0.3 [–0.4; –0.9/0.3] 0.2 [0.1; –0.2/0.6] 0.3 [0.3; 0.1/0.6]† 0.2 [0.0; –0.6/0.9]
Height orally –0.9 [–1.0; –1.3/–0.5]† 0.0 [0.1; –0.5/0.3] 0.1 [0.2; –0.1/0.5] –0.8 [–0.8; –1.4/–0.3]†
Width –3.1 [–2.9; –3.9/–2.1]† –0.9 [–0.7; –1.3/–0.3]† –0.9 [–0.7; –1.2/–0.4]† –4.9 (10.9–6.0) [–4.9; –5.5/–4.3]†
Molar
Height buccally 0.1 [0.3; –0.9/0.8] 0.1 [0.2; –0.2/0.5] 0.3 [0.1; –0.1;0.5] 0.5 [0.2; –0.6/0.9]
Height orally –0.7 [–0.7; –1.2/–0.4]† –0.1 [0.1; –0.4/0.4] 0.0 [–0.2; –0.4/0.2] –0.8 [–0.7; –1.5/–0.1]†
Width –4.5 [–3.7; –6.2/–2.6]† –1.7 [–1.6; –2.8/–0.4]† –1.0 [–0.9; –1.5/–0.3]† –7.2 (13.0–5.8) [–7.6; –8.3/–6.3]†
Maxilla
Height buccally –0.2 [–0.6; –1.0/0.4] 0.2 [0.4; 0.1/0.5]† 0.5 [0.3; 0.0/0.6]† 0.5 [0.1; –0.6/1.4]
Height orally –0.9 [–1.0; –1.2/–0.5]† 0.0 [–0.1; –0.4/0.4] 0.2 [0.2; –0.2/0.5] –0.7 [–0.7; –1.3/–0.1]†
Width –3.4 [–3.0; –4.6/–1.9]† –1.4 [–0.9; –1.4/–0.4]† –1.0 [–1.0; –1.2/–0.4]† –5.8 (12.7–6.9) [–6.2; –7.7/–4.4]†
Mandible
Height buccally –0.1 [–0.1; –0.7/0.7] 0.1 [0.1; –0.3/0.5] 0.2 [0.1; 0.0/0.5]† 0.2 [0.0; –0.7/0.4]
Height orally –0.8 [–0.7; –1.3/–0.4]† –0.1 [0.1; –0.4/0.2] 0.0 [–0.2; –0.3/0.2] –0.9 [–0.8; –1.6/–0.2]†
Width –4.2 [–3.7; –5.1/–2.7]† –1.3 [–0.9; –2.3/–0.4]† –0.9 [–0.7; –1.4/–0.3]† –6.4 (11.5–5.1) [–5.8; –7.6/–5.0]†
*Absolute width in parentheses; median and 25th/75th percentiles in brackets; positive values = tissue gain; negative values = tissue loss.
†P < .05.
rho > .90; P < .0001). The bone lev- and distal teeth, respectively. After apically situated point between Mx
els at the tooth surfaces mesial as 12- month healing of the extraction and Dx was located 1.2 mm more
well as distal to the extraction site socket, the difference in bone levels apical than at these two sites (P <
were almost unchanged from extrac- mesially and distally had increased .0001).
tion to the 12-month visit (a loss of from 0.7 to 0.9 mm and from 0.3 to
approximately 0.1 mm). At baseline, 0.5 mm, respectively. The bone level
the mean bone levels corresponding at Mx and Dx after 12 months was sit- Subtraction radiography
to the mesial (Mx) and distal sites uated 0.3 mm more apical than at
(Dx) of the extracted tooth were baseline. This difference was statis- Because of lack of useful reference
located 0.7 mm and 0.3 mm more tically significant (P < .04). Further- points, the subtraction procedure
apically than the level at the mesial more, the bone level at the most was not performed in three patients.
Table 3 Descriptives for mean gray values in areas of gain, loss, and no change as defined by
thresholds, and size of these areas in pixels
I3 – IBase I6 – IBase I12 – IBase
Region Mean gray value Area size Mean gray value Area size Mean gray value Area size
Area of gain
Median 151.4*† 1,644‡ 158.0* 2,640‡ 161.8† 1,602
25th/75th percentiles 138.2/165.3 492/3,188 146.4/169.1 1,374/3,958 151.5/174.5 689/3,916
Mean 147.4 2,053 154.5 2,812 159.3 2,224
Standard deviation 32.1 1,917 32.4 2,067 33.9 1,690
Area of loss
Median 101.2 845 107.4 911 114.6 704
25th/75th percentiles 96.4/121.0 148/2,299 97.8/123.7 155/1,610 103.4/128.0 193/1,662
Mean 104.5 1,508 104.0 1,127 109.3 1,537
Standard deviation 27.1 1,770 31.5 1,288 32.3 1,964
Area of no change
Median 131.1* 5,438 135.2 4,987 139.7* 4,639
25th/75th percentiles 122.9/147.2 4,830/7,022 127.5/148.6 3,663/6,692 126.7/151.9 4,069/7,002
Mean 133.2 6,027 136.7 5,649 140.5 5,778
Standard deviation 19.3 2,319 20.0 2,679 17.7 2,706
*P < .05; †P < .02; ‡P < .005.
In addition, eight patients were the area showing bone gain was and I6 – IBase was significantly differ-
excluded from the statistical analysis larger after 6 months than after 12 ent (P < .005). For the unchanged
of the subtraction data because of months of healing. The area of gain area, the mean gray value in images
poor recording reproducibility. The was larger after 6 months than after I3 – IBase and I12 – IBase differed sig-
results of the subtraction analysis are 3 and 12 months (Table 3), and it nificantly (P < .05).
described for the remaining 35 was larger than the area of loss after Comparing the results of sub-
patients. 3, 6, and 12 months. The size of the traction radiography and the linear
The general observation of latter area was approximately the radiographic measurements, of the
bone changes in the extraction sites same at 3, 6, and 12 months. The 34 patients who were analyzed by
was that bone formation took place mean gray value of both the gain subtraction radiography and fol-
in the extraction alveoli simultane- and loss areas increased during the lowed for 12 months, a reduction of
ously with a loss of height of the 12 months of healing; the bone the crest was seen in 26. Crestal
alveolar crest (Figs 3c to 3e). Most of became more dense over this bone loss was found in 25 of these
this bone gain and loss occurred period. Using a nonparametric test, also when using linear measure-
within the first 3 months. In contrast, it was found that for areas of gain, ments. In five of the remaining eight
remodeling of the lamina dura— the mean gray value in images I3 – patients, agreement between the
including the septum in cases of mul- IBase and I6 – IBase (P < .05), as well as two methods was found.
tirooted teeth—was more pro- the mean gray value in images I3 –
nounced in the period from 6 to 12 IBase and I12 – IBase (P < .02), differed
months after tooth extraction. In significantly. Furthermore, the size
approximately one third of the cases, of the gain area in images I3 – IBase
be visualized only in the coronal part results.22–24 Guided tissue regener- References
because the alveolus makes up a ation, with or without grafting mate-
larger fraction of the total width of rial, can be applied to preserve bone 1. Schneider R. Prosthetic concerns about
atrophic alveolar ridges. Postgrad Dent
the alveolar bone in the coronal volume. 11,25 Immediate implant 1999;6:3–7.
compared with the apical part. placement in fresh extraction sockets
2. Atwood DA, Coy WA. Clinical, cephalo-
Different methods have been has been shown to be a successful metric, and densitometric study of reduc-
employed in the present study alternative to the original treatment tion of residual ridges. J Prosthet Dent
to evaluate changes of the alveolar protocol. 26–30 In addition to the 1971;26:280–295.
bone following tooth extraction. advantages of reduced treatment 3. Atwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges:
A major oral disease entity. J Prosthet
Strong agreement was found be- time and costs, preservation of the
Dent 1971;26:266–279.
tween the linear radiographic mea- osseous structures could be pro-
4. Huebsch RF, Hansen LS. A histopatho-
surements and subtraction analysis vided by this concept.31–34 However, logic study of extraction wounds in dogs.
when studying the bone changes of in some cases, it is preferable to Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1969;28:
the alveolar crest. Subtraction radi- defer the time of implant placement, 187–196.
ography is a supplementary radi- eg, to minimize the risk of compli- 5. Amler MH, Johnson PL, Salman I.
ographic method for evaluation of Histological and histochemical investiga-
cations caused by infected recipient
tion of human alveolar socket healing in
crestal changes of the alveolar bone. sites. This study indicates that con- undisturbed extraction wounds. J Am
By means of linear radiographic cerning the optimal dimensions of Dent Assoc 1960;61:46–48.
measurements, a bone loss of less the alveolar bone, it would be favor- 6. Boyne PJ. Osseous repair of the postex-
than 0.1 mm at the teeth adjacent to able to place the implant as soon as traction alveolus in man. Oral Surg Oral
the extraction site was found. This Med Oral Pathol 1966;21:805–813.
possible following tooth extraction.
does not contradict the finding that Because preservation of alveolar 7. Carlsson GE, Bergman B, Hedegard B.
Changes in contour of the maxillary alve-
the attachment level was almost bone following tooth extraction has olar process under immediate dentures.
unchanged during the healing a major impact on the functional and A longitudinal clinical and x-ray cephalo-
period. Finally, the model analysis esthetic outcome of subsequent metric study covering 5 years. Acta
revealing a loss of height of approx- Odontol Scand 1967;25:45–75.
prosthetic treatment, further re-
imately 1 mm corresponded very search should be conducted on this 8. Carlsson GE, Persson G. Morphologic
changes of the mandible after extraction
well with the linear radiographic topic. and wearing of dentures. A longitudinal,
measurements. clinical, and x-ray cephalometric study
The reduction of alveolar bone covering 5 years. Odontol Revy 1967;18:
volume following tooth extraction 27–54.
Acknowledgments
may interfere with placement of 9. Pietrokovski J, Massler M. Alveolar ridge
The authors wish to thank the staff at the resorption following tooth extraction. J
implants and influence the treatment
Department of Oral Radiology, and the Prosthet Dent 1967;17:21–27.
success of fixed or removable den-
Department of Periodontology & Oral 10. Johnson K. A study of the dimensional
tures with regard to function and Gerodontology, Royal Dental College, changes occurring in the maxilla follow-
esthetics. Therefore, it would be University of Aarhus, Denmark, for their assis- ing tooth extraction. Aust Dent J 1969;14:
advantageous to avoid this loss of tance. In addition, we appreciate Torben 241–244.
Jørgensen’s help with the program for digi-
tissue. Procedures have been sug- 11. Lekovic V, Kenney EB, Weinlaender M, et
tal subtraction radiography.
al. A bone regenerative approach to alve-
gested to facilitate bone formation
olar ridge maintenance following tooth
in extraction sockets and minimize extraction. Report of 10 cases. J
loss of bone height and buccolin- Periodontol 1997;68:563–570.
gual width. Placement of grafting 12. Lam RV. Contour changes of the alveolar
materials in extraction alveoli has processes following extractions. J
Prosthet Dent 1960;10:25–32.
been used with contradictory
13. Lehmann TM, Gröndahl HG, Benn DK. 23. Gülaldi NC, Shahlafar J, Makhsoosi M, 31. Denissen HW, Kalk W. Preventive implan-
Computer-based registration for digital Caner B, Araz K, Erbengi G. Scintigraphic tations. Int Dent J 1991;41:17–24.
subtraction in dental radiology. Dento- evaluation of healing response after het- 32. Denissen HW, Kalk W, Veldhuis HA, van
maxillofac Radiol 2000;29:323–346. erograft usage for alveolar extraction cav- Waas MA. Anatomic considerations for
ity. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral preventive implantation. Int J Oral
14. Christgau M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G,
Radiol Endod 1998;85:520–525. Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:191–196.
Kolbeck C, Wenzel A. Accuracy of quan-
titative digital subtraction radiography 24. Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE. The application 33. Kalk W, Denissen HW, Käyser AF.
for determining changes in calcium mass of deproteinized bovine bone mineral for Preventive goals in oral implantology. Int
in mandibular bone: An in vitro study. J ridge preservation prior to implantation. Dent J 1993;43:483–491.
Periodontal Res 1998;33:138–149. Clinical and histological observations
in a case report. J Periodontol 1998;69: 34. Wheeler SL, Vogel RE, Casellini R. Tissue
15. Christgau M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, preservation and maintenance of opti-
1062–1067.
Kolbeck C, Wenzel A. Quantitative digi- mum esthetics: A clinical report. Int J Oral
tal subtraction radiography for the deter- 25. Nevins M, Mellonig JT. Enhancement of Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:265–271.
mination of small changes in bone thick- the damaged edentulous ridge to receive
ness: An in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral dental implants: A combination of allo-
Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; graft and the Gore-Tex membrane. Int J
85:462–472. Periodontics Restorative Dent 1992;12:
96–111.
16. Loftin R, Webber R, Horton R, Tyndall D,
Moriarty J. Effect of projective aspects 26. Brånemark P-I. Introduction to osseoin-
variations on estimates of changes in tegration. In: Brånemark P-I, Zarb G,
bone mass using digital subtraction Albrektsson T (eds). Tissue-Integrated
radiography. J Periodontal Res 1998;33: Prostheses. Osseointegration in Clinical
352–358. Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence, 1985:
11–76.
17. Jensen J, Kragskov J, Wenzel A, Sindet-
Pedersen S. In vitro analysis of the accu- 27. Becker BE, Becker W, Ricci A, Geurs N. A
racy of subtraction radiography and com- prospective clinical trial of endosseous
puted tomography scanning for deter- screw-shaped implants placed at the time
mination of bone graft volume. J Oral of tooth extraction without augmenta-
Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:743–748. tion. J Periodontol 1998;69:920–926.
18. Sewerin I. Device for serial intraoral radi- 28. Brägger U, Hämmerle CH, Lang NP.
ography with controlled projection angles. Immediate transmucosal implants using
Tandlaegebladet 1990;94:613–617. the principle of guided tissue regenera-
tion (II). A cross-sectional study comparing
19. Gotfredsen E, Kragskov J, Wenzel A.
the clinical outcome 1 year after immedi-
Development of a system for craniofa-
ate to standard implant placement. Clin
cial analysis from monitor-displayed dig-
Oral Implants Res 1996;7:268–276.
ital images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol
1999;28:123–126. 29. Lang NP, Brägger U, Hämmerle CH,
Sutter F. Immediate transmucosal
20. Wenzel A, Sewerin I. Sources of noise in
implants using the principle of guided
digital subtraction radiography. Oral Surg
tissue regeneration. I. Rationale, clinical
Oral Med Oral Pathol 1991;71:503–508.
procedures and 30-month results. Clin
21. Johnson K. A study of the dimensional Oral Implants Res 1994;5:154–163.
changes occurring in the maxilla follow-
30. Schropp L, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A.
ing tooth extraction—Part 1. Normal
Bone healing following immediate versus
healing. Aust Dent J 1963;8:428–433.
delayed placement of titanium implants
22. Olson RA, Roberts DL, Osbon DB. A into extraction sockets—A prospective
comparative study of polylactic acid, clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Gelfoam, and Surgicel in healing extrac- Implants 2003;18:189–199.
tion sites. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol
1982;53:441–449.