4.7 Article

Measures of Corticalization

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 18, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11185463

Keywords

dental implants; long-term results; long-term success; functional loading; peri-implant bone; intra-oral radiographs; radiomics; texture analysis; corticalization; bone remodeling

Funding

  1. Medical University of Lodz [503/5-06102/503-51-001-18, 503/5-061-02/503-51-001-17, 503/5-061-02/503-51-002-18]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the measurement indices of corticalization in peri-implant bone and propose other indices for detecting corticalization in living bone. The findings suggest that CIs are better measures for clear clinical deduction.
After the insertion of dental implants into living bone, the condition of the peri-implant bone changes with time. Implant-loading phenomena can induce bone remodeling in the form of the corticalization of the trabecular bone. The aim of this study was to see how bone index (BI) values behave in areas of bone loss (radiographically translucent non-trabecular areas) and to propose other indices specifically dedicated to detecting corticalization in living bone. Eight measures of corticalization in clinical standardized intraoral radiographs were studied: mean optical density, entropy, differential entropy, long-run emphasis moment, BI, corticalization index ver. 1 and ver. 2 (CI v.1, CI v.2) and corticalization factor (CF). The analysis was conducted on 40 cortical bone image samples, 40 cancellous bone samples and 40 soft tissue samples. It was found that each measure distinguishes corticalization significantly (p < 0.001), but only CI v.1 and CI v.2 do so selectively. CF or the inverse of BI can serve as a measure of peri-implant bone corticalization. However, better measures are CIs as they are dedicated to detecting this phenomenon and allowing clear clinical deduction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available