4.1 Article

Cortical bone mineral density in asymmetrical mandibles: a three-dimensional quantitative computed tomography study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 217-232

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/23.3.217

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The three-dimensional distribution (3D) of the highest mineralized cortical bone was evaluated in 32 subjects between the ages of 8 and 30 years with asymmetrical mandibles using quantitative computed tomography (OCT). The geometrical distribution of the highest mineralized areas (> 1250 mg/cm(3)) representative of mandibular cortical bone was determined by 3D reconstruction of the images. The length of the mandible on each side was determined by defining a new linear measurement from the centre of the 3D reconstructed condyle to the midline of the symphysis as identified from a submental view. The cross-sectional areas of the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles were assessed from bilateral axial views through the middle of the muscles parallel to the Frankfort-Horizontal plane. Comparison between the lengths of the two mandibular sides (right - left = mm) indicated a range of asymmetries with an equal number of subjects with the left and right mandible longer. Comparison of the area of highest mineralized cortical bone between the right and left sides (R/L) to the ratio of the mandibular length (R/L) showed a high correlation coefficient (r = 0.629) suggesting that the shortest mandibular side had more highly mineralized bone. A comparison of the area of highest mineralized cortical bone between the right and left sides (R/L) to the ratio of cross-sectional areas of the muscles showed the highest correlation coefficient (r = 0.724) with the ipsilateral masseter muscle. These findings indicate that asymmetrical mandibles are associated with asymmetrical distributions of the highest mineralized cortical bone and that this is age dependent.

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