K Horner1, H Devlin. 1. Turner Dental School, University of Manchester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare densitometric and linear measurements (mandibular cortical thickness, MCT; panoramic mandibular index, PMI) made from dental panoramic tomograms (DPTs) with bone mineral density (BMD) values obtained using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the mandible and to determine whether measurements from DPTs have validity in predicting BMD. METHODS: Forty edentulous female patients were examined by a DPT incorporating a nickel step wedge and by DXA of the mandible. In each case the equivalent nickel thickness of sites in the mandibular body, MCT and PMI values were calculated and their relationship with DXA measurements assessed. RESULTS: Densitometric measurements of DPTs did not correlate with mandibular BMD. MCT significantly correlated with mandibular BMD (r = 0.50, P = 0.001 and r = 0.36, P = 0.021 for repeated measurements) as did PMI (r = 0.37, P = 0.019 and r = 0.38, P = 0.016 for repeated measurements). All three measurements from DPTs had limited repeatability. MCT and PMI had moderate sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of low mandibular BMD. Using ROC analysis, MCT and PMI measurements of one observer were significantly more valid than densitometry for diagnosis of low mandibular BMD. CONCLUSIONS: It may be feasible to use MCT and PMI as diagnostic indicators of mandibular BMD, but further work is required to overcome problems with repeatability and to provide a larger patient sample.
OBJECTIVES: To compare densitometric and linear measurements (mandibular cortical thickness, MCT; panoramic mandibular index, PMI) made from dental panoramic tomograms (DPTs) with bone mineral density (BMD) values obtained using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the mandible and to determine whether measurements from DPTs have validity in predicting BMD. METHODS: Forty edentulous female patients were examined by a DPT incorporating a nickel step wedge and by DXA of the mandible. In each case the equivalent nickel thickness of sites in the mandibular body, MCT and PMI values were calculated and their relationship with DXA measurements assessed. RESULTS: Densitometric measurements of DPTs did not correlate with mandibular BMD. MCT significantly correlated with mandibular BMD (r = 0.50, P = 0.001 and r = 0.36, P = 0.021 for repeated measurements) as did PMI (r = 0.37, P = 0.019 and r = 0.38, P = 0.016 for repeated measurements). All three measurements from DPTs had limited repeatability. MCT and PMI had moderate sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of low mandibular BMD. Using ROC analysis, MCT and PMI measurements of one observer were significantly more valid than densitometry for diagnosis of low mandibular BMD. CONCLUSIONS: It may be feasible to use MCT and PMI as diagnostic indicators of mandibular BMD, but further work is required to overcome problems with repeatability and to provide a larger patient sample.
Authors: F S Neves; L S A F Oliveira; M G G Torres; M B P Toralles; M C B O da Silva; M I G Campos; P S F Campos; I Crusoé-Rebello Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: O Nackaerts; R Jacobs; K Horner; F Zhao; C Lindh; K Karayianni; P van der Stelt; S Pavitt; H Devlin Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Stuart C White; Akira Taguchi; David Kao; Sam Wu; Susan K Service; Douglas Yoon; Yoshikazu Suei; Takashi Nakamoto; Keiji Tanimoto Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2004-07-27 Impact factor: 4.507