Evaluation of the Effect of Osteoporosis on Mandible with Mandibular Indexes Using Panoramic Radiography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effects of osteoporosis (OP) using panoramic mandibular index (PMI) and mandibular cortical index (MCI) in panoramic radiographic and cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images and to demonstrate any advantages of CBCT versus panoramic imaging in those indexes.
Materials & Methods: 36 female patients (18 with osteoporosis and 18 with no systemic disease) who had panoramic radiographic and CBCT indication due to dental problems were involved in the study. PMI and MCI are evaluated on both panoramic and CBCT images. Differences between patient groups are analyzed by the Kruskal Wallis test, and differences between imaging techniques are analyzed by impaired t-tests ignoring patient groups in confidence interval 95%. Results: In CBCT images, PMIs were significantly lower in patients with osteoporosis than in the control group (p=0.004), and there was no significant difference between the patient and control group in panoramic images (p=0.085). In both imaging techniques, MCIs were significantly higher in the osteoporosis group than in the control group (p=0.000). CBCT showed a significant advantage on PMI to panoramic images (p=0.05).
Conclusion: Systemic diseases affect bone tissue in different levels, and to evaluate these effects, cortical and trabecular bone parts must be investigated separately, and findings must be combined with patients’ clinical symptoms. CBCT has advantages in PMI evaluations to panoramic radiography.

Keywords

• osteoporosis
• panoramic radiography
• cone beam computed tomography
• dentistry
• mandible

References

1. 1. Watanabe P, Farman A, Watanabe M, Issa J. Ra- diographic Signals Detection of Systemic Disease: Or- thopantomographic Radiography. Int J Morphol. 2008;26. doi:10.4067/S0717-95022008000400021.
2. 2. Osteoporosis 1995. Basic diagnosis and therapeutic elements for a national consensus proposal. Sao Paulo, Brazil, May 12-13, 1995. Sao Paulo Med J. 1995;113(4 Suppl):1–64.
3. 3. Muir JM, Ye C, Bhandari M, Adachi JD, Thabane L. The effect of regular physical activity on bone mineral density in post-menopausal women aged 75 and over: a retrospective analysis from the Canadian multicentre osteoporosis study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:253. doi:10.1186/1471- 2474-14-253.
4. 4. Raisz LG, Rodan GA. Pathogenesis of osteoporo- sis. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2003;32(1):15–24. doi:10.1016/s0889-8529(02)00055-5.
5. 5. Schurman DJ, Maloney WJ, Smith RL. In: Marcus R, Feld- man D, Kelsey J, editors. Chapter 56 - Localized Osteo- porosis. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001. p. 385–400. doi:10.1016/B978-012470862-4/50057-X.
6. 6. Hatemi HH. Osteoporozunetyolojsivesekonderosteoporo- zlar. In: Osteoporoz Sempozyumu. İstanbul: İ.Ü. Cerrah- paşa Tıp Fak; 1999. p. 57–61.
7. 7. Riggs BL, Khosla S, Melton r L J. A unitary model for invo- lutional osteoporosis: estrogen deficiency causes both type I and type II osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and contributes to bone loss in aging men. J Bone Miner Res. 1998;13(5):763–73. doi:10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.5.763.
8. 8. Quiros Roldan E, Brianese N, Raffetti E, Focà E, Pez- zoli MC, Bonito A, et al. Comparison between the gold standard DXA with calcaneal quantitative ultrasound based-strategy (QUS) to detect osteoporosis in an HIV infected cohort. Braz J Infect Dis. 2017;21(6):581–586. doi:10.1016/j.bjid.2017.08.003.

9. 9. Ledgerton D, Horner K, Devlin H, Worthington H. Radiomorphometric indices of the mandible in a British fe- male population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999;28(3):173– 181. doi:10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600435.
10. 10. Tounta TS. Diagnosis of osteoporosis in dental patients. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls. 2017;2(2):21–27.
11. 11. Yaşar HHY, Füsun. Osteoporoz ve dişhekimliği. SDÜ Tıp Fak Derg. 2003;10(4):59–64.
12. 12. Khojastehpour L, Shahidi S, Barghan S. Efficacy of Panoramic Mandibular Index in Diagnosing Osteoporosis in Women. J Dent Tehran Univ Med Sci. 2008;6.
13. 13. Roberts MG, Graham J, Devlin H. Image texture in den- tal panoramic radiographs as a potential biomarker of os- teoporosis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013;60(9):2384–92. doi:10.1109/tbme.2013.2256908.
14. 14. Gulsahi A. Osteoporosis and jawbones in women. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015;5(4):263–267. doi:10.4103/2231-0762.161753.
15. 15. Mohajery M, Brooks SL. Oral radiographs in the de- tection of early signs of osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992;73(1):112–117. doi:10.1016/0030- 4220(92)90167-o.
16. 16. Taguchi A, Tsuda M, Ohtsuka M, Kodama I, Sanada M, Nakamoto T, et al. Use of dental panoramic radio- graphs in identifying younger postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(3):387–394. doi:10.1007/s00198-005-2029-7.
17. 17. Grocholewicz K, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Aniko- Włodarczyk M, Preuss O, Trybek G, Sobolewska E, et al. Panoramic radiographs and quantitative ultrasound of the radius and phalanx III to assess bone mineral status in postmenopausal women. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):127. doi:10.1186/s12903-018-0593-4.
18. 18. Bayrak S, Göller Bulut D, Orhan K, Sinanoğlu EA, Kurşun Çakmak E, Mısırlı M, et al. Evaluation of osseous changes in dental panoramic radiography of thalassemia patients using mandibular indexes and fractal size analysis. Oral Radiol. 2020;36(1):18–24. doi:10.1007/s11282-019- 00372-7.
19. 19. Hastar E, Yilmaz HH, Orhan H. Evaluation of mental in- dex, mandibular cortical index and panoramic mandibular index on dental panoramic radiographs in the elderly. Eur J Dent. 2011;5(1):60–67.
20. 20. Drozdzowska B, Pluskiewicz W, Tarnawska B. Panoramic- based mandibular indices in relation to mandibular bone mineral density and skeletal status assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative ul- trasound. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31(6):361–367. doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600729.
21. 21. Marandi S, Bagherpour A, Imanimoghaddam M, Hatef M, Haghighi A. Panoramic-based mandibular indices and bone mineral density of femoral neck and lumbar vertebrae in women. J Dent (Tehran). 2010;7(2):98–106.
22. 22.Taguchi A, Tanimoto K, Suei Y, Otani K, Wada T. Oral signs as indicators of possible osteoporosis in elderly women. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995;80(5):612–616. doi:10.1016/s1079-2104(05)80158-1.
23. 23. Govindraju P, Chandra P. Radiomorphometric indices of the mandible - an indicator of osteoporosis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(3):195–198. doi:10.7860/jcdr/2014/6844.4160.
24. 24. Nemati S, Kajan Z, Saberi B, Arzin Z, Erfani M. Diagnos- tic value of panoramic indices to predict osteoporosis and osteopenia in postmenopausal women. J Oral Maxillofac Radiol. 2016;4(2):23–30. doi:10.4103/2321-3841.183820.
25. 25. Yamada S, Uchida K, Iwamoto Y, Sugino N, Yoshinari N, Kagami H, et al. Panoramic radiography measure- ments, osteoporosis diagnoses and fractures in Japanese men and women. Oral Diseases. 2015;21(3):335–341. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12282.
26. 26. Mostafa RA, Arnout EA, Abo El-Fotouh MM. Feasi- bility of cone beam computed tomography radiomor- phometric analysis and fractal dimension in assess- ment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in correlation with dual X-ray absorptiometry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016;45(7):20160212. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20160212.
27. 27. Koh KJ, Kim KA. Utility of the computed tomography in- dices on cone beam computed tomography images in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in women. Imaging Sci Dent. 2011;41(3):101–106. doi:10.5624/isd.2011.41.3.101.