Background: Accurate assessment of the residual alveolar ridge width is critical for successful dental implant
placement. Multiple techniques exist to measure this parameter, ranging from radiographic to clinical and non-invasive imaging methods.
Objectives: To compare the reliability, accuracy, and clinical applicability of six different techniques—direct surgical
measurement (gold standard), CBCT, ridge mapping, ultrasound, digital caliper, and occlusal radiography—for
evaluating residual alveolar ridge width prior to dental implant placement.
Materials and Methods: Sixty patients (35 females, 25 males; mean age 52.7±11.3 years) with 85 implant sites were
evaluated using all six techniques. Ridge width measurements were recorded at three levels (crestal, 3 mm, and 6 mm
apical) using each method. Direct surgical measurement during implant placement served as the gold standard.
Results: Mean ridge width by direct surgical measurement was 4.20±1.58 mm. Ridge mapping (4.57±1.63 mm), CBCT
(4.62±1.67 mm), and digital caliper (4.25±1.60 mm) showed no significant difference from the gold standard (p > 0.05).
Occlusal radiography significantly overestimated ridge width (5.10±1.80 mm, p<0.001). Ridge mapping showed highest accuracy (95%) and correlation (r=0.95), followed by digital caliper (94%, r=0.94) and CBCT (92%, r=0.92). Ultrasound showed moderate accuracy (89%) and correlation (r=0.89), while occlusal radiography was least accurate (85%, r=0.82).
Intra-examiner and inter-examiner reliability were excellent across all techniques (ICC range: 0.85–0.98).
Conclusion: Ridge mapping and CBCT are reliable, accurate, and clinically effective non-invasive alternatives for
evaluating alveolar ridge width before implant placement. Ridge mapping offers a radiation-free, cost-effective chairside solution, while CBCT provides comprehensive anatomical details with higher cost and radiation exposure. Ultrasound is promising but requires further refinement to match the accuracy of established methods. Ridge mapping and CBCT are reliable, accurate, and clinically effective non-invasive alternatives for evaluating alveolar ridge width before implant placement. Ridge mapping offers a radiation-free, cost-effective chairside solution, while CBCT provides comprehensive anatomical details with higher cost and radiation exposure. Ultrasound is promising but requires further refinement to match the accuracy of established methods.
Hi! I can explain how to publish or share, find articles in your field, format citations and answer questions about fees and licensing. How can I help?
Answers are based on The Gufo’s published policies. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
