» Articles » PMID: 18371103

Quantitative Computed Tomography Bone Mineral Density Measurements in Irradiated and Non-irradiated Minipig Alveolar Bone: an Experimental Study

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2008 Mar 29
PMID 18371103
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to analyse the effect of irradiation on bone mineral density (BMD).

Materials And Methods: All maxillary and mandibular pre-molars and molars of six minipigs were extracted. After a 3-month healing period, the maxilla and mandibles of three minipigs received three irradiation exposures at a total dose of 24 Gy. At 3 months after irradiation, quantitative computed tomography (QCT) was performed. As a reference, a calibration bone phantom with pre-determined BMD was attached to the head of the minipigs. The QCT data were imported into a software program to calculate the BMD of the alveolar bone and the calibration bone phantom. In order to compare BMD values of individual minipigs, the so-called bone mineral density quotient (BMDQ) was created, dividing the BMD value of the alveolar bone by the BMD value of the calibration bone phantom.

Results: Mean BMDQ values appeared to be higher in irradiated than in non-irradiated minipigs. However, the difference was not significant. In both irradiated and non-irradiated minipigs, the average mandibular BMDQ values were statistically significantly higher than the average maxillary BMDQ values (P=0.003). The P-values of the Student t-test, determining the irradiation effect, were 0.11 for maxillary, 0.14 for mandibular, and 0.07 for overall peri-implant BMDQ. P-values of the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test were all 0.05.

Conclusion: It could be concluded that, 3 months after irradiation, the BMD of irradiated alveolar minipig bone was increased, when compared with non-irradiated alveolar minipig bone. However, the increase was not statistically significant.

Citing Articles

A Computed Tomographic Study of the Molar Teeth of spp.

Macdonald A, Ziehmer B, Kitchener A, Gelang M, Ablad B, Lintonsson R J Vet Dent. 2024; :8987564241248818.

PMID: 38706174 PMC: 11894872. DOI: 10.1177/08987564241248818.


Survival of Dental Implants on Irradiated Jaws: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Kende P, Ranganath S, Landge J, Sarda A, Wadewale M, Patil A J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2022; 21(3):787-795.

PMID: 36274870 PMC: 9474974. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-022-01686-6.


A challenging journey of maxillofacial implants placement and rehabilitation in an irradiated exenterated socket.

Jain R, Ghosh M, Goel R, Gupta R, Golhait P, Ghosh B J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2022; 12(3):319-323.

PMID: 35433244 PMC: 9011021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.03.011.


Ability to Propose Optimal Prosthetic Rehabilitation can be Improved by Discussion between the Dentist and Radiation Oncologist Regarding Upstream Dosimetry.

Rouers M, Bornert F, Truntzer P, Dubourg S, Bourrier C, Antoni D Eur J Dent. 2019; 13(1):88-94.

PMID: 31170766 PMC: 6635961. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688523.


Systemic and local effects of radiotherapy: an experimental study on implants placed in rats.

Vegian M, Costa B, Santana-Melo G, Godoi F, Kaminagakura E, Tango R Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 24(2):785-797.

PMID: 31154539 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02946-5.