Table 3.
Study | CBCT models | Patients | Application | Resultsa |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aranyarachkul et al34 | 1 | 9 human cadavers (63 sites) | Bone density for implant placement | Spearman correlation (R) with Lekholm–Zalb ratings, 0.46–0.60 |
Barone et al68 | 1 | 6 (12 sites) | Bone density after implant placement | Higher relative GVs for immediate implant loading, +5.2% (para-axial), +6.8% (axial) |
Brosh et al69 | 1 | 8 swine bones | Bone quality at inter-radicular sites for mini-implant placement | Correlation between GV and hardness: 0.70 (maxilla)–0.75 (mandible). Correlation for individual sites only found in mandible. |
Fuster-Torres et al70 | 1 | 22 | Bone density for implant placement | Correlation between GV, resonance frequency and insertion torque, R2 = 0.000–0.548 (average, 0.071) |
Kaya et al71 | 1 | 16 | Bone density in periapical lesions, pre- and post-treatment (2 years) | Significant differences between GV pre- and post-treatment |
Lee et al72 | 1 | 42 human cadavers | Bone density (osteotomy and implant placement) | Similar Spearman correlation (R) for CBCT and multidetector CT GVs vs subjective drilling resistance (0.59–0.61) and implant insertion resistance torque (0.61–0.63). |
Sennerby et al63 | 1 | 49 | Bone density for implant placement, pre and post (6 month) | Correlation between GV, resonance frequency and insertion torque, R2 = 0.21–0.31 |
Simon et al73 | 1 | 17 | Differential diagnosis of periapical lesions | 13/17 cases showed correspondence between CBCT GV and biopsy Validity of biopsy questioned for four other cases |
Song et al74 | 1 | 20 | Bone density for implant placement | Correlation coefficient for CBCT GVs and implant stability quotients, 0.2887–0.7525 |
Tatli et al75 | 1 | 23 (77 implants) | Bone density for implant placement | Spearman correlation of CBCT GVs vs implant stability quotients at four time points, R = 0.544–0.874 CBCT GV vs stability loss, R = −0.470 |
Recalculated to R2 when explicitly stated that R was used.