4.5 Article

Structural and radiological parameters for the characterization of jawbone

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 124-133

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01204.x

关键词

compression; CT scan; DXA; hounsfield; jawbone; micro-CT; ultrasonography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the Hounsfield values of selected bone sites on a computed tomography (CT) scan of the jaw and to investigate the relationship between this radiological parameter and structural parameters. Materials and methods: A selection of 24 bone samples out of eight cadaver human jaws was made. The following parameters were measured: Hounsfield value in the jaw (HU1) determined by a first CT scan, Hounsfield value of the excised bone specimen (HU2) by a second CT scan, bone mineral density (BMD) by a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan, bone volume (BV/TV) by the microfocus CT scan, first peak transmission time (TUS-1) and first zero crossing transmission time (TUS-2) by an ultrasound measurement and Young's modulus (E-MECH) by a compression test. Results: Thirteen specimens were composed of a mix of trabecular and a small amount of cortical bone, while another 11 specimens were composed of trabecular bone only. A good correlation was found between the HU value of the specimen (HU2) and BMD (rho=0.99), BV/TV (rho=0.97), TUS-1 (rho=-0.83), TUS-2 (rho=-0.87) and E-MECH (rho=0.83). For the pure trabecular bone specimens, the HU value of the excised bone specimen (HU2) was highly correlated (rho=0.95) with the HU value of the total jaw scan (HU1). For mixed trabecular-cortical bone specimens, this relationship was weak (rho=0.57). Conclusion: With the current CT scan technology, predictions of the mechanical properties of trabecular jaw bone based on Hounsfield values were only valid for jaws with a thin layer of cortical bone. For jaws with a thicker cortical layer, the prediction of the mechanical properties decreased significantly.

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