4.3 Review

A paradigm shift for bone quality in dentistry: A literature review

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTIC RESEARCH
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 353-362

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.05.006

关键词

Bone quality; Collagen; Biological apatite (BAp); Osteocytes; Prosthodontic dentistry

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [JP25870523, JP15K11258, JP15H05030, JP25220912, JP15K15704, JP16H04517]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15KK0337, 15H05030, 15K11258, 15K15704] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to present the current concept of bone quality based on the proposal by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and some of the cellular and molecular factors that affect bone quality. Study selection: This is a literature review which focuses on collagen, biological apatite (BAp), and bone cells such as osteoblasts and osteocytes. Results: In dentistry, the term bone quality has long been considered to be synonymous with bone mineral density (BMD) based on radiographic and sensible evaluations. In 2000, the NIH proposed the concept of bone quality as the sum of all characteristics of bone that influence the bone's resistance to fracture, which is completely independent of BMD. The NIH defines bone quality as comprising bone architecture, bone turnover, bone mineralization, and micro-damage accumulation. Moreover, our investigations have demonstrated that BAp, collagen, and bone cells such as osteoblasts and osteocytes play essential roles in controlling the current concept of bone quality in bone around hip and dental implants. Conclusion: The current concept of bone quality is crucial for understanding bone mechanical functions. BAp, collagen and osteocytes are the main factors affecting bone quality. Moreover, mechanical loading dynamically adapts bone quality. Understanding the current concept of bone quality is required in dentistry. (C) 2017 Japan Prosthodontic Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.3
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