4.5 Article

Variance of radiographical alveolar bone mineral density by the anatomical morphology of mandibular bone

期刊

HELIYON
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11507

关键词

Intraoral radiograph; Alveolar bone; Bone mineral density (BMD); Mandible

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the relationship between cross-sectional anatomical size and bone mineral density (BMD) of alveolar bone. The results showed that mandible width and cancellous bone CT value were significant explanatory variables affecting the BMD of the mandible.
Purpose: Evaluating the bone mineral density (BMD) of alveolar bone is useful for dental treatments. The Den-talSCOPE is an image analysis system developed to evaluate the BMD of alveolar bone. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between cross-sectional anatomical size and BMD value. Materials and methods: Thirty-four subjects (adult dental patients and volunteers) participated in this study. Intraoral radiographs of the mandibular molar region were acquired. Using DentalSCOPE software, three to four line-shaped regions of interest (ROIs) were obtained in the alveolar septum region. Cross-sectional CT images of mandible at the same position to above mentioned line-shaped ROI was reconstructed from subject's dental CBCT images. The measurements were performed using cross-sectional CT images and compared with BMD value. Results and discussion: For stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, the buccal-lingual width of the mandibular body (mandible width) and the CT value of the cancellous bone were adopted as explanatory variables that affected the BMD of the mandible. The BMD value increased by 20 mg/mm2 when the mandible width increased by 1 mm, and the BMD value increased by 5 mg/mm2 when the CT value of the cancellous bone increased by 1%. Conclusion: In the clinical application of alveolar bone BMD, the effect of the anatomical morphology of alveolar bone should be taken into consideration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据