Literature DB >> 11146376

Advanced imaging of the macrostructure and microstructure of bone.

H K Genant1, C Gordon, Y Jiang, T M Link, D Hans, S Majumdar, T F Lang.   

Abstract

Noninvasive and/or nondestructive techniques are capable of providing more macro- or microstructural information about bone than standard bone densitometry. Although the latter provides important information about osteoporotic fracture risk, numerous studies indicate that bone strength is only partially explained by bone mineral density. Quantitative assessment of macro- and microstructural features may improve our ability to estimate bone strength. The methods available for quantitatively assessing macrostructure include (besides conventional radiographs) quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and volumetric quantitative computed tomography (vQCT). Methods for assessing microstructure of trabecular bone noninvasively and/or nondestructively include high-resolution computed tomography (hrCT), micro-computed tomography (muCT), high-resolution magnetic resonance (hrMR), and micromagnetic resonance (muMR). vQCT, hrCT and hrMR are generally applicable in vivo; muCT and muMR are principally applicable in vitro. Although considerable progress has been made in the noninvasive and/or nondestructive imaging of the macro- and microstructure of bone, considerable challenges and dilemmas remain. From a technical perspective, the balance between spatial resolution versus sampling size, or between signal-to-noise versus radiation dose or acquisition time, needs further consideration, as do the trade-offs between the complexity and expense of equipment and the availability and accessibility of the methods. The relative merits of in vitro imaging and its ultrahigh resolution but invasiveness versus those of in vivo imaging and its modest resolution but noninvasiveness also deserve careful attention. From a clinical perspective, the challenges for bone imaging include balancing the relative advantages of simple bone densitometry against the more complex architectural features of bone or, similarly, the deeper research requirements against the broader clinical needs. The considerable potential biological differences between the peripheral appendicular skeleton and the central axial skeleton have to be addressed further. Finally, the relative merits of these sophisticated imaging techniques have to be weighed with respect to their applications as diagnostic procedures requiring high accuracy or reliability on one hand and their monitoring applications requiring high precision or reproducibility on the other. Copyright 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NASA Discipline Musculoskeletal; Non-NASA Center

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11146376     DOI: 10.1159/000063444

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Horm Res        ISSN: 0301-0163


  7 in total

1.  Non-invasive microCT imaging characterization and in vivo targeting of BB2 receptor expression of a PC-3 bone metastasis model.

Authors:  Christopher T Winkelmann; Said Daibes Figueroa; Gary L Sieckman; Tammy L Rold; Timothy J Hoffman
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.488

2.  Anticipating bipedalism: trabecular organization in the newborn ilium.

Authors:  Craig A Cunningham; Sue M Black
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.610

Review 3.  Surgical treatment options in patients with impaired bone quality.

Authors:  Norman A Johanson; Jody Litrenta; Jay M Zampini; Frederic Kleinbart; Haviva M Goldman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Comparison of micro-CT and cone beam CT on the feasibility of assessing trabecular structures in mandibular condyle.

Authors:  Xin Liang; Zuyan Zhang; Jianping Gu; Zhihui Wang; Bart Vandenberghe; Reinhilde Jacobs; Jie Yang; Guowu Ma; Haibin Ling; Xuchen Ma
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  MRI of trabecular bone using a decay due to diffusion in the internal field contrast imaging sequence.

Authors:  Dionyssios Mintzopoulos; Jerome L Ackerman; Yi-Qiao Song
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  A review of anatomical and mechanical factors affecting vertebral body integrity.

Authors:  Andrew M Briggs; Alison M Greig; John D Wark; Nicola L Fazzalari; Kim L Bennell
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2004-10-12       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  Compressive axial mechanical properties of rat bone as functions of bone volume fraction, apparent density and micro-ct based mineral density.

Authors:  Esther Cory; Ara Nazarian; Vahid Entezari; Vartan Vartanians; Ralph Müller; Brian D Snyder
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2009-12-08       Impact factor: 2.712

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.