Comparative Assessment of Three Different Alveolar Ridge Dimension Measurement Methods before Implant Placement: An Study.

Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare the three various techniques for measuring the alveolar ridge's dimensions prior to implant insertion.

Materials And Methods: For this study, a total of 36 participants were chosen. To prepare a surgical stent, a study model was created from an alginate impression. A first point (reference point) was marked on the crest of the ridge in relation to the adjacent teeth. Then, one point (point 1) and another point (point 2) were marked at distances of 3 and 6 mm, respectively, from the reference point. Based on the procedure for measuring the size of the alveolar ridge, the study was divided into the following groups. Group I: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurement method; Group II: Ridge mapping measurement method; Group III: Direct caliper measurements method. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the mean and standard deviation (SD). The Student's unpaired -test was utilized for the statistical analysis. The 5% level of significance was used.

Results: There was no significant difference found between CBCT with ridge mapping and direct caliper measurements. However, on comparison of ridge mapping and direct caliper measurements technique, at point 1, the ridge mapping was 3.88 ± 0.12 and the direct caliper measurement was 3.62 ± 0.08. At point 2, the ridge mapping was 6.58 ± 0.06 and the direct caliper measurement was 6.32 ± 0.04. There was a statistically significant difference found between these two measurement methods.

Conclusion: Within the limitation, the current study came to the conclusion that when CBCT and ridge mapping measurements were individually compared with the gold standard-the surgical open method, CBCT-demonstrated to be a highly specific and sensitive method for detecting the residual alveolar ridge width in the treatment planning of dental implants.

Clinical Significance: Evaluation of alveolar bone is necessary during treatment planning for dental implant placement. Using simply panoramic and/or periapical radiographs to evaluate the bone may not be sufficient because it only provides two-dimensional information regarding the implant locations. Therefore, for better implant placement, three-dimensional information of the implant site, such as CBCT and ridge mapping technique, should be assessed.