• Home
  • Issues
    • Current
    • All Issues
  • About
    • Aims and Scope
      Editorial Board
      Indexing
      Sources of Financing
      Ethics & Policies
      Publication Ethics Conflict of Interest Open Access Policy Archiving Complaints Policy Privacy Statement Corrections and Retractions Anti-plagiarism Policy Generative AI Policy
      For Authors
      Terms of Publication Formatting Guidelines Peer Review Process Article Processing Charges License Agreement
  • Submission
  • Contacts
en
  • Русский
  • Кыргыз

Journal of Human Biology and Clinical Medicine

  • Submit an article
  • Home
  • Issues
    • Current
    • All Issues
  • About
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Sources of Financing
  • For Authors
    • Submission
    • Terms of Publication
    • Formatting Guidelines
    • Peer Review Process
    • Article Processing Charges
    • License Agreement
  • Ethics & Policies
    • Publication Ethics
    • Conflict of Interest
    • Open Access Policy
    • Archiving
    • Complaints Policy
    • Privacy Statement
    • Corrections and Retractions
    • Anti-plagiarism Policy Generative AI Policy
  • Contacts

Article

  • Read article
  • Download article

Received 06.02.2026

Revised 01.05.2026

Accepted 05.06.2026

Retrieved from Vol. 2, No. 2, 2026

Pages 8 -19

  • 350 Views

Suggested citation

Abirova, R., & Eshiev, A. (2026). Quantitative assessment of regional variability in mandibular bone density based on cone-beam computed tomography data. Journal of Human Biology and Clinical Medicine, 2(2), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.63621/jhbcm/2.2026.08

Quantitative assessment of regional variability in mandibular bone density based on cone-beam computed tomography data

Rahat Abirova, Abdyrakman Eshiev

Abstract

Despite the widespread use of cone-beam computed tomography, regional variations in cortical and trabecular bone density remain insufficiently characterised. The aim of this study was to assess mandibular bone density across different anatomical regions and to identify clinical situations in which pre-implant bone augmentation may be required. The methodology involved the analysis of cone-beam computed tomography data with quantitative assessment of bone density in the anterior, premolar, and molar regions of the mandible. The highest bone density values were observed in the anterior mandible, averaging 944.9 ± 207 HU in the control group and 910.2 ± 198 HU in edentulous patients (p > 0.05). In the premolar region, bone density decreased to 643.8 ± 162 HU in the absence of teeth, compared with 826.4 ± 175 HU in dentate individuals (p < 0.05). The most pronounced reduction was identified in the molar region, where values reached 512.5 ± 148 HU in edentulous patients versus 789.7 ± 160 HU in the control group (p < 0.01), confirming the adverse effect of prolonged posterior tooth loss on bone quality. Furthermore, reduced bone density in the distal mandible was associated with compromised cortical bone characteristics, potentially affecting the primary stability of dental implants. These regional differences should be taken into account when selecting implant dimensions and planning the extent of bone augmentation, particularly in patients with long-standing edentulism. The findings are clinically relevant for optimising implant treatment strategies, determining the need for bone augmentation, and improving the predictability of surgical outcomes

Keywords:

mandible; bone tissue density; CBCT; regional variability; alveolar ridge; bone augmentation

References

  1. Park CS, Kang SR, Kim JE, Huh KH, Lee SS, Heo MS, et al. Validation of bone mineral density measurement using quantitative CBCT image based on deep learning. Sci Rep. 2023;13:11921. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-38943-8
  2. Avila-Ortiz G, Elangovan S, Kramer KW, Blanchette D, Dawson DV. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):950–8. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514541127
  3. Yildirim O, Eberlikose H, Gulen O. Morphological and cortical bone assessment of the edentulous posterior mandible using CBCT implications for implant planning and mandibular cortical index evaluation. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):1893. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-025-06951-x
  4. Lorenz J, Ghanaati S, Aleksic Z, Milinkovic I, Lazic Z, Magić M, et al. Horizontal guided bone regeneration of the posterior mandible to allow implant placement: 1-year prospective study results. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2024:36(1):100–16. DOI: 10.1111/clr.14363
  5. Starch-Jensen T, Vitenson J, Deluiz D, Østergaard KB, Tinoco EMB. Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth block graft compared with autogenous bone block graft: A systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2022;13(1):e1. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2022.13101
  6. Suthakar P, Gupta A, Chansoria H, Soni M, Pandey S, Patil M. Revolutionizing implant success: CBCT-guided mandibular ridge resorption assessment with genial tubercle as a key reference. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025;17(2):1949–51. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1663_24
  7. Proceedings of the 21st All-Russian Dental Forum, February 12-14, 2024, Moscow, Russia. Russ J Stomatol. 2024;17(2):35–75. DOI: 10.17116/rosstomat20241702135
  8. Eshiev AM, Abirova RE. Evaluation of bone tissue biotypes in the area of ​​chewing teeth of the upper jaw in men and women of different age groups using cone beam computed tomography. Sci Rev Med Sci. 2025;6:5–11. DOI: 10.17513/srms.1460
  9. Eshiev AM, Israilov BA. Modified methods for the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Int J Hum Nat Sci. 2025;11–2:306–13. DOI: 10.24412/2500-1000-2025-11-2-306-313
  10. Abdymechinova AK, Bazarbekov MM, Avazali uulu M, Bakasov AT, Toktobaeva GA, Fayzullaeva AM, et al. Results of treatment of traumatic brain injury and its complications. Eur Asian Health J. 2020:12(4):21–9.
  11. Johansson B. Bone grafts and dental implants in the reconstruction of the severely atrophied, edentulous maxilla [Doctoral dissertation]. Uppsala: Uppsala University; 2001.
  12. The Declaration of Helsinki. 2013 [cited 2026 February 18]. Available from: https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/
  13. Materials of the 22nd All-Russian Dental Forum 2025, Moscow, Russia. Russ J Stomatol. 2025;18(3):88–144. DOI: 10.17116/rosstomat20251803188
  14. Tsitsiashvili AM, Panin AM, Lepilin AV, Chuvilkin VI, Akhmedov GD. Implant surgery in partially edentulous patients with alveolar bone deficiency. Stomatologiia. 2019;98(1):30–3. DOI: 10.17116/stomat20199801130
  15. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. The efficacy of horizontal and vertical bone augmentation procedures for dental implants – a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009;2(3):167–84.
  16. Kim YH, Shin JY, Lee A, Park S, Han SS, Hwang HJ. Automated cortical thickness measurement of the mandibular condyle head on CBCT images using a deep learning method. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):14852. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94362-7
  17. Harikrishnan R, Subhashree R, Ganesh SB, Ashok V. Relation between bone density and primary stability in the posterior mandibular region in patients undergoing dental implant treatment: A retrospective study. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2021;31(2):71–9. DOI: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.2021035972
  18. Lyu M, Xu D, Zhang X, Yuan Q. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A review of current evidence on anatomical factors and a decision tree. Int J Oral Sci. 2023;15(1):41. DOI: 10.1038/s41368-023-00248-x
  19. Eguren M, Holguin A, Diaz K, Vidalon J, Linan C, Pacheco-Pereira C, et al. Can gray values be converted to Hounsfield units? A systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2022;51(1):20210140. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20210140
  20. Arvind TRP, Jain RK, Nagi R, Tiwari A. Evaluation of alveolar bone microstructure around impacted maxillary canines using fractal analysis in Dravidian population: A retrospective CBCT study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2022;23(6):593–600.
  21. Hassan NA, Al-radha ASD. CBCT Evaluation of quality and quantity of bones for immediate implant treatment planning in central incisor area in relation to arch form. Sci World J. 2023;8863318. DOI: 10.1155/2023/8863318
  22. Agrawal MS, Nambiar SS, Agrawal J, Shetti SS, Fulari SA. A comparative evaluation of bone density surrounding buccally and palatally impacted canines utilizing fractal analysis: A Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) study. Cureus. 2025;17(4):e82761. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.82761
  23. Choi YJ, Jun SH, Song YD, Chang MW, Kwon JJ. CT scanning and dental implant. In: CT scanning – techniques and applications. London: InTech; 2011. P. 229–50. DOI: 10.5772/19250
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
Telegram
Viber
WhatsApp

Address
723500, Kyrgyz Republic, Osh city,
Alymbek Datka Street, 428


Email
journal@humanbiomed.com

Main information
  • Aims and Scope
  • Indexing
  • Terms of Publication
  • Editorial Board
  • Publication Ethics
Additional information
  • Complaints Policy
  • Peer Review Process
  • Open Access Policy
  • Anti-plagiarism Policy Generative AI Policy
  • Archiving