Emine Şebnem Kurşun-Çakmak1, Seval Bayrak2. 1. Türkiye Public Hospitals Agency, Ministry of Health, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Abant İzzet Baysal University, Dentistry Faculty, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Bolu, Turkey. Electronic address: dtseval@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the fractal dimension (FD) and radiomorphometric indices in the assessment of mandibular bone of patients with type 1 (T1 DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2 DM). STUDY DESIGN: Panoramic radiographs of 104 patients were evaluated to calculate FD, mandibular cortical width (MCW), panoramic mandibular index (PMI), and mandibular cortical index (MCI) in the mandible. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in FD when T1 DM and T2 DM groups were compared with controls (P ≥ .168). Patients with T1 DM had significantly lower MCW (P < .001) and PMI (P = .030) compared with controls. Patients with T2 DM had no significant differences in MCW (P = .228) or PMI (P = .137) compared with controls. No significant differences were observed between patients with T1 DM and those with T2 DM for FD, MCW, and PMI (P > .05). In the T1 DM and T2 DM groups, there was a significant correlation between MCW and FD (P ≤ .011). No correlation was observed between FD and PMI in either the T1 DM group or the T2 DM group (P ≥ .142). No significant differences in MCI were observed between the DM groups and controls (P = .740) or between the T1 DM and T2 DM groups (P = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: The cortical and trabecular bone architectures of patients with T1 DM and T2 DM were not different. Patients with T1 DM had lower cortical measurements compared with controls.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the fractal dimension (FD) and radiomorphometric indices in the assessment of mandibular bone of patients with type 1 (T1 DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2 DM). STUDY DESIGN: Panoramic radiographs of 104 patients were evaluated to calculate FD, mandibular cortical width (MCW), panoramic mandibular index (PMI), and mandibular cortical index (MCI) in the mandible. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in FD when T1 DM and T2 DM groups were compared with controls (P ≥ .168). Patients with T1 DM had significantly lower MCW (P < .001) and PMI (P = .030) compared with controls. Patients with T2 DM had no significant differences in MCW (P = .228) or PMI (P = .137) compared with controls. No significant differences were observed between patients with T1 DM and those with T2 DM for FD, MCW, and PMI (P > .05). In the T1 DM and T2 DM groups, there was a significant correlation between MCW and FD (P ≤ .011). No correlation was observed between FD and PMI in either the T1 DM group or the T2 DM group (P ≥ .142). No significant differences in MCI were observed between the DM groups and controls (P = .740) or between the T1 DM and T2 DM groups (P = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: The cortical and trabecular bone architectures of patients with T1 DM and T2 DM were not different. Patients with T1 DM had lower cortical measurements compared with controls.
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: Camila Pacheco-Pereira; Yuri Silvestre-Barbosa; Fabiana T Almeida; Hassem Geha; Andre F Leite; Eliete N S Guerra Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Teodora Rodic; Eva Maria Wölfel; Petar Milovanovic; Imke A K Fiedler; Danica Cvetkovic; Katharina Jähn; Michael Amling; Jelena Sopta; Slobodan Nikolic; Vladimir Zivkovic; Björn Busse; Marija Djuric Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 3.573