4.1 Article

Impact of Bone Volume Upon Condylar Activity in Patients With Unilateral Condylar Hyperplasia

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 76, Issue 10, Pages 2177-2182

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.03.023

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Unilateral condylar hyperplasia or hyperactivity (UCH) is a bone overgrowth disorder affecting the mandible. The purpose of this study was to determine the relations among age, condylar bone structure, condylar bone volume, and condylar bone activity on single-photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) scans in patients with UCH. Materials and Methods: This study included 20 patients with a clinical presentation of progressive mandibular asymmetry and a positive bone SPECT scan. A bone SPECT-derived standardized uptake value (bSUV) for the condylar region was determined. All patients underwent condylectomy to arrest further progression of the disease. The resected condyles were scanned with a micro-computed tomographic scanner (18-mu m resolution). Bone architectural parameters were calculated with routine morphometric software. Results: The mean bSUV of the condyle on the affected side was 15.32 (standard deviation [SD], 8.98) compared with 9.85 (SD, 4.40) on the nonaffected side (P = .0007). For trabecular bone structure, there was a nonsignificant correlation between the SUV of the affected condyle and the measured bone volume fraction (r = 0.13; P = .58) and trabecular thickness (r = 0.03; P = .90). Conclusion: No meaningful relation was found between condylar bone volume fraction and condylar activity on bone scan; therefore, the impact of bone volume fraction on the results of bone scans is limited. The measured condylar activity on SPECT scan seems to be primarily a reflection of the remodeling rate of bone. (C) 2018 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available