OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compare the variations of bone density in the midfacial bones as measured by computed tomography (CT) scans between the osteoporosis and control groups and to evaluate the regions that facial trauma and iatrogenic problem often occur in the midface. METHODS: The 96 patients who underwent both osteomeatal unit CT scans and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at our hospital were included in this study retrospectively. Seven skeletal regions were chosen for evaluation: group A (orbital floor, nasal bone), group B (zygomaticomaxillary suture, zygomatic arch, zygomaticofrontal suture), and group C (anterior wall of the maxillary sinus, maxillary process). Forty-seven patients were in the osteoporosis group, and 49 patients were in the control group. On a PACS (picture archiving communication system), the region of interest was analyzed, and the Hounsfield units were measured. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the mean bone density of the midfacial bones between the osteoporosis group and the control group (P < 0.01). For both groups, each of comparison of the 7 skeletal regions was greater as group A < group B < group C in this order (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We can see the independent effects of osteoporosis on the midfacial bones using CT scans. Estimated Hounsfield unit through CT scan is able to explain osteoporosis, which may be useful in the clinical fields in the future.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compare the variations of bone density in the midfacial bones as measured by computed tomography (CT) scans between the osteoporosis and control groups and to evaluate the regions that facial trauma and iatrogenic problem often occur in the midface. METHODS: The 96 patients who underwent both osteomeatal unit CT scans and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at our hospital were included in this study retrospectively. Seven skeletal regions were chosen for evaluation: group A (orbital floor, nasal bone), group B (zygomaticomaxillary suture, zygomatic arch, zygomaticofrontal suture), and group C (anterior wall of the maxillary sinus, maxillary process). Forty-seven patients were in the osteoporosis group, and 49 patients were in the control group. On a PACS (picture archiving communication system), the region of interest was analyzed, and the Hounsfield units were measured. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the mean bone density of the midfacial bones between the osteoporosis group and the control group (P < 0.01). For both groups, each of comparison of the 7 skeletal regions was greater as group A < group B < group C in this order (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We can see the independent effects of osteoporosis on the midfacial bones using CT scans. Estimated Hounsfield unit through CT scan is able to explain osteoporosis, which may be useful in the clinical fields in the future.
Authors: Kimia G Ganjaei; Zachary M Soler; Elliott D Mappus; Robert J Taylor; Mitchell L Worley; Jennifer K Mulligan; Jose L Mattos; Nicholas R Rowan; Guilherme J M Garcia; Judy R Dubno; Mark A Eckert; Lois J Matthews; Rodney J Schlosser Journal: Am J Rhinol Allergy Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 2.467
Authors: Kimia G Ganjaei; Zachary M Soler; Elliott D Mappus; Mitchell L Worley; Nicholas R Rowan; Guilherme J M Garcia; Lois J Matthews; Judy R Dubno; Mark A Eckert; Rodney J Schlosser Journal: Rhinology Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Andrea Plawecki; Michael Bobian; Aron Kandinov; Peter F Svider; Adam J Folbe; Jean Anderson Eloy; Michael Carron Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: Min Kyun Na; Yu Deok Won; Choong Hyun Kim; Jae Min Kim; Jin Hwan Cheong; Je Il Ryu; Myung-Hoon Han Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.240