Structural and radiological parameters for the characterization of jawbone

Stoppie, Nele; Pattijn, Veerle; Cleynenbreugel, Tim Van; Wevers, Martine; Sloten, Jos Vander; Naert, I.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01204.x

Cited by 38 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the 3D domain, bone quality assessment methods have also been studied. Texture analysis has been applied in micro‐CT (Apostol et al 2006), while Hounsfield units (HU) have been used in spiral CT as a measure, related to jaw BMD (Stoppie et al 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone quality assessment based on cone beam computed tomography imaging

Yan

Nackaerts

Duyck

et al. 2009

Clinical Oral Implants Res

145

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone quality assessment based on cone beam computed tomography imaging

Yan

Nackaerts

Duyck

et al. 2009

Clinical Oral Implants Res

145

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a minimal cortical thickness of 1 mm is suggested for the placement of OMIs [10], it is recommended that the OMIs be inserted at an incline position [27]. OMI implants are inserted in both cortical and trabecular bone and predictions of the mechanical properties of the trabecular jaw bone based on HU values were reported to be valid for jaws with a thin layer of cortical bone [28]. For jaws with a thicker cortical layer, the prediction of the mechanical properties decreased significantly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can cone beam CT predict the hardness of interradicular cortical bone?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesOrthodontic mini implants can be inserted at the interradicular site. The bone quality at this site may affect the stability and anchorage of the implant. Bone density is clinically evaluated by Hounsfield units (HU) obtained from cone beam CT (CBCT). The objective of this study was to determine the correlations between HU, microhardness and cortical bone thickness of interradicular site at various segments (anterior/posterior) and aspects (buccal/lingual) of both jaws in a swine model.Materials and methodsEight mandible and maxilla swine bones were scanned by CBCT. The HU and thickness of the above-mentioned sites were determined. Then, a Knoop microhardness test was applied and the Knoop Hardness Number was obtained (KHN).ResultsThe mandible parameters spread over a wider range than the maxilla. The buccal aspect of the maxilla had higher HU and KHN values than the mandible. The lingual aspect of the mandible had higher KHN values than the maxilla. Posterior segments had higher HU and KHN values. The thickness of the alveolar cortical bone was greater in the maxilla than in the mandible. Correlations were found between HU and KHN for 3 of the 4 sites (anterior or posterior, buccal or lingual) of the mandible only. No correlations were found for the maxilla. Upon pooling the HU and KHN data for the whole jaw, correlation was found for the maxilla as well.ConclusionsRelying on HU values as a predictor of cortical bone hardness should be considered with caution.

show abstract

“…18 The descriptive evaluation presented here is a common methodology. 19 Some authors based quality assessments on density measurements. 3 We did not consider Hounsfield values because of their inconsistency between the different CBCT devices; additionally, voxels are not always isotropic, as has been shown by MDCT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%