Rafael Sindeaux1, Paulo Tadeu de Souza Figueiredo2, Nilce Santos de Melo3, Ana Tereza Bittencourt Guimarães4, Leonardo Lazarte5, Fernando Borges Pereira1, Ana Patrícia de Paula6, André Ferreira Leite7. 1. University of Brasília, Brazil. 2. Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Science, University of Brasília, Brazil. 3. Oral Pathology, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Science, University of Brasília, Brazil. 4. Biostatistics, Biological Sciences Department, State University of West Paraná, Paraná, Brazil. 5. Department of Mathematics, University of Brasília, Brazil. 6. Hospital de Base of Federal District, Brasília, Brazil. 7. Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Science, University of Brasília, Brazil. Electronic address: andreleite@unb.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To verify whether fractal dimensions (FD) on the mandibular trabecular and cortical bone and mandibular cortical width (MCW) differ between patients with normal bone mineral density (BMD) and osteoporosis. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective study, 133 dental panoramic radiographs from men aged >60 years and postmenopausal women with a bone densitometry report of the lumbar spine and hip classified as either normal or osteoporotic were selected. Fractal dimensions of five standardized trabecular and cortical mandibular regions of interest and mandibular cortical width were measured on the panoramic radiographs by an experienced oral radiologist, blinded to the densitometric diagnosis. The following statistical analyses were performed: ANOVA and a forward logistic stepwise regression to verify associations between dental panoramic measurements and the densitometric diagnosis. P values less than .05 indicated statistical significance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fractal dimension and mandibular cortical width. RESULTS: Differences were found in the FD values on mandibular cortical bone and MCW between patients with normal BMD and with osteoporosis, but not in the FD values of trabecular bone. The odds of having lower mean values of MCW and FD on cortical bone were 2.16, 3125 and 1005 times in osteoporotic patients, respectively, compared with patients with normal BMD. CONCLUSION: The values of FD analysis on mandibular cortical bone and MCW were lower in women with osteoporosis. A well-adjusted logistic regression model showed that cortical bone measurements might be considered as auxiliary tools to referring patients for DXA exam.
OBJECTIVE: To verify whether fractal dimensions (FD) on the mandibular trabecular and cortical bone and mandibular cortical width (MCW) differ between patients with normal bone mineral density (BMD) and osteoporosis. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective study, 133 dental panoramic radiographs from men aged >60 years and postmenopausal women with a bone densitometry report of the lumbar spine and hip classified as either normal or osteoporotic were selected. Fractal dimensions of five standardized trabecular and cortical mandibular regions of interest and mandibular cortical width were measured on the panoramic radiographs by an experienced oral radiologist, blinded to the densitometric diagnosis. The following statistical analyses were performed: ANOVA and a forward logistic stepwise regression to verify associations between dental panoramic measurements and the densitometric diagnosis. P values less than .05 indicated statistical significance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fractal dimension and mandibular cortical width. RESULTS: Differences were found in the FD values on mandibular cortical bone and MCW between patients with normal BMD and with osteoporosis, but not in the FD values of trabecular bone. The odds of having lower mean values of MCW and FD on cortical bone were 2.16, 3125 and 1005 times in osteoporoticpatients, respectively, compared with patients with normal BMD. CONCLUSION: The values of FD analysis on mandibular cortical bone and MCW were lower in women with osteoporosis. A well-adjusted logistic regression model showed that cortical bone measurements might be considered as auxiliary tools to referring patients for DXA exam.
Authors: Eliete N S Guerra; Fabiana T Almeida; Fernanda V Bezerra; Paulo T D S Figueiredo; Maria A G Silva; Graziela De Luca Canto; Camila Pachêco-Pereira; André F Leite Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: D de Sá Cavalcante; M G da Silva Castro; A R P Quidute; M R A Martins; A M P L Cid; P G de Barros Silva; J Cadwell Williams; F S Neves; T R Ribeiro; F W G Costa Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Ana C Apolinário; Rafael Sindeaux; Paulo T de Souza Figueiredo; Ana T B Guimarães; Ana C Acevedo; Luiz C Castro; Ana P de Paula; Lilian M de Paula; Nilce S de Melo; André F Leite Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Nathália R Gomes; Juliano D S Albergaria; Jonathas A de S Henriques; Tânia M P Amaral; Evandro N Abdo; Gerluza A B Silva; Cláudia Borges Brasileiro Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 2.419