CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF DENTAL IMPLANT PATIENTS WITH D3 AND D4 BONE DENSITY AT SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY IN 2025 - 2026

Thái Minh Hoàng Nguyễn1, , Đình Phúc Nguyễn2, Thị Hằng Nga Đào1, Văn Việt Đàm3, Thanh Hà Đào4, Minh Huệ Nguyễn1, Phú Thắng Nguyễn1
1 Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội
2 Bệnh viện Đa khoa Đống Đa
3 Bệnh viện Răng Hàm Mặt Trung ương Hà Nội
4 Trường Đại học Kinh doanh và Công nghệ Hà Nội

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To describe the clinical and radiographic characteristics of dental implant patients with D3 and D4 bone density at the Institute of Odonto-Stomatology from 2025 to 2026.


Subjects and Methods: A descriptive case series study was conducted involving 17 patients with tooth loss, aged 18 to 70 years. The patients had stable general health, presented with D3 or D4 bone density, were indicated for dental implant placement, and met the inclusion criteria. The collected data were analyzed using statistical methods.


Results: The study sample consisted of 71% males and 29% females. The 18–40 age group accounted for the highest proportion at 53%, while the over-60 age group was the lowest at 6%. The rate of missing teeth in the maxilla (upper jaw) was 52.94%, compared to 47.06% in the mandible (lower jaw). The average buccolingual bone width in the edentulous area was 13.23 ± 2.45 mm. The average bone height was 12.25 ± 4.66 mm, with a minimum value of 5.38 mm. The D3 bone type was predominant, accounting for 84.6%, whereas the D4 bone type made up a smaller proportion at 15.4%.


Conclusion: Although the study sample primarily consisted of young males with sufficient buccolingual bone width, their low bone density—combined with vertical bone deficiencies in some cases—indicates that clinicians cannot rely on standard drilling protocols. Instead, treatments must be personalized based on radiographic data, and additional techniques such as bone condensation (osseodensification) or sinus lifting must be utilized to ensure implant success.

Article Details

References

1. Goiato MC, Dos Santos DM, Jr. Santiago JF, Moreno A, Pellizzer EP. Longevity of dental implants in type IV bone: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(9):1108-1116. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.016
2. Munjal S, Munjal S, Hazari P, Mahajan H, Munjal A, Mehta DS. Evaluation of specifically designed implants placed in the low-density jaw bones: A clinico-radiographical study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2015;6(1):40. doi:10.4103/0976-237X.149290
3. Gomulinski S, Gandillot V, Valet F, et al. What Do Patients Prefer in Periodontal and Implant Therapy? A Scoping Review. J Periodontal Res. 2025;60(10):949-962. doi:10.1111/jre.13412
4. Lipsky MS, Su S, Crespo CJ, Hung M. Men and Oral Health: A Review of Sex and Gender Differences. Am J Mens Health. 2021;15(3):15579883211016361. doi:10.1177/15579883211016361
5. Alibrahim A, Al Salieti H, Alrawashdeh M, Darweesh H, Alsaleh H. Patterns and predictors of tooth loss among partially dentate individuals in Jordan: A cross-sectional study. Saudi Dent J. 2024;36(3):486-491. doi:10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.12.010
6. Hansson S, Halldin A. Alveolar ridge resorption after tooth extraction: A consequence of a fundamental principle of bone physiology. J Dent Biomech. 2012;3:1758736012456543. doi:10.1177/1758736012456543
7. Passarelli PC, Pagnoni S, Piccirillo GB, et al. Reasons for Tooth Extractions and Related Risk Factors in Adult Patients: A Cohort Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2575. doi:10.3390/ijerph17072575
8. Sogo M, Ikebe K, Yang TC, Wada M, Maeda Y. Assessment of bone density in the posterior maxilla based on Hounsfield units to enhance the initial stability of implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14 Suppl 1:e183-187. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00423.x