Correlation between Bone Mineral Density Measured by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Hounsfield Units Measured by Diagnostic CT in Lumbar Spine

Lee, Sungjoon; Chung, Chun Kee; Oh, Sungchan; Park, Sung Bae

doi:10.3340/jkns.2013.54.5.384

Cited by 195 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 The accuracy and reproducibility of this method have been already found to be very good. 22 It seems that there is no published work in relation to the assessment of alveolar bone density around the four lower incisors in different skeletal patterns with healthy periodontal tissues. The only study that assessed alveolar bone density was published by Nauert et al 7 However, the study evaluated bone support (including thickness and density) at different levels of the lower incisors' roots in adults with a near-to-normal occlusion using conventional CT imaging.…”

Section: Jcdpmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Bone Thickness and Density in the Lower Incisors’ Region in Adults with Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusion using Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Al-Masri¹,

Ajaj²,

Hajeer³

et al. 2015

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the bone thickness and density in the lower incisors' region in orthodontically untreated adults, and to examine any possible relationship between thickness and density in different skeletal patterns using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods:The CBCT records of 48 patients were obtained from the archive of orthodontic department comprising three groups of malocclusion (class I, II and III) with 16 patients in each group. Using OnDemand 3D ® software, sagittal sections were made for each lower incisor. Thicknesses and densities were measured at three levels of the root (cervical, middle and apical regions) from the labial and lingual sides. Accuracy and reliability tests were undertaken to assess the intraobserver reliability and to detect systematic error. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to detect significant differences among the three groups of skeletal malocclusion.Results: Apical buccal thickness (ABT) in the four incisors was higher in class II and I patients than in class III patients (p < 0.05). There were significant differences between buccal and lingual surfaces at the apical and middle regions only in class II and III patients. Statistical differences were found between class I and II patients for the cervical buccal density (CBD) and between class II and III patients for apical buccal density (ABD). Relationship between bone thickness and density values ranged from strong at the cervical regions to weak at the apical regions. Conclusions:Sagittal skeletal patterns affect apical bone thickness and density at buccal surfaces of the four lower incisors'

show abstract

Section: Jcdpmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Bone Thickness and Density in the Lower Incisors’ Region in Adults with Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusion using Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Al-Masri¹,

Ajaj²,

Hajeer³

et al. 2015

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, we used CTderived HU to estimate the degree of BMD reduction. Although the gold standard for measuring BMD is the DEXA scan, several studies demonstrate the utility of diagnostic CT scan in providing reliable estimates for regional bone strength and BMD [10][11][12][13]. Secondly, this study is a retrospective review of patients treated at a single institution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) serves as the gold standard for BMD quantification, several studies have determined that the BMD provided by DEXA has a strong correlation with CT-derived Hounsfield units (HU), can provide reliable estimates for regional bone strength and BMD, and accurately rule out osteoporosis with better than 90% sensitivity [10][11][12][13]. Since diagnostic CT scans are ordered routinely to monitor response to treatments, we can utilize CT-derived HU to monitor BMD in patients, while avoiding the need for additional DEXA imaging and improving resource utilization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone Mineral Density Loss in Thoracic and Lumbar Vertebrae Following Radiation for Abdominal Cancers

Jung

Wei

Sehgal³

et al. 2016

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tPurpose: To investigate the relationship between abdominal chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced cancers and bone mineral density (BMD) reduction in the vertebral spine. Materials and methods: Data from 272 patients who underwent abdominal radiation therapy from January 1997 to May 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-two patients received computed tomography (CT) scans of the abdomen prior to initiation and at least twice after radiation therapy. Bone attenuation (in Hounsfield unit) (HU) measurements were collected for each vertebral level from T7 to L5 using sagittal CT images. Radiation point dose was obtained at each mid-vertebral body from the radiation treatment plan. Percent change in bone attenuation (D%HU) between baseline and post-radiation therapy were computed for each vertebral body. The D%HU was compared against radiation dose using Pearson's linear correlation. Results: Abdominal radiotherapy caused significant reduction in vertebral BMD as measured by HU. Patients who received only chemotherapy did not show changes in their BMD in this study. The D%HU was significantly correlated with the radiation point dose to the vertebral body (R = À0.472, P < 0.001) within 4-8 months following RT. The same relationship persisted in subsequent follow up scans 9 months following RT (R = À0.578, P < 0.001). Based on the result of linear regression, 5 Gy, 15 Gy, 25 Gy, 35 Gy, and 45 Gy caused 21.7%, 31.1%, 40.5%, 49.9%, and 59.3% decrease in HU following RT, respectively. Our generalized linear model showed that pre-RT HU had a positive effect (b = 0.830) on determining post-RT HU, while number of months post RT (b = À0.213) and radiation point dose (b = À1.475) had a negative effect. A comparison of the predicted versus actual HU showed significant correlation (R = 0.883, P < 0.001) with the slope of the best linear fit = 0.81. Our model's predicted HU were within ±20 HU of the actual value in 53% of cases, 70% of the predictions were within ±30 HU, 81% were within ±40 HU, and 90% were within ±50 HU of the actual post-RT HU. Four of 42 patients were found to have vertebral body compression fractures in the field of radiation. Vertebral body insufficiency and compression fractures are most commonly caused by osteoporosis, an age-related and systemic skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength and low bone mineral density [1]. Although, most fractures are asymptomatic, the degree of BMD loss, location of the fracture, and secondary osteoporosis from underlying medical condition including chemotherapy may make an asymptomatic, stable fracture more prone to progressive collapse causing pain, loss of mobility, and spinal cord compression [2]. The overall morbidity of vertebral body compression fractures is significant, and women diagnosed with compression fractures have a 15% higher mortality rate than matched controls [3].Irradiation of normal, non-malignant bone results in small vessel damage leading to microcirculatory occlusion, marrow hypocellularity from death of osteo...

show abstract

“…Physical definition of volume is represent by the relation between mass and density. In this study, the concept of the bone density was not evaluated, but in the future research we will try to provide interpretation of it through the indexes of bone density by Hounsfield scale, even if diagnostic role of this densitometric parameter remains controversial [30,31]. Alternatively, we propose to determine the absolute physical loss of bone tissue by the formula Vph = Vsi * HU, where Vph -is objective physical volume of bone loss, Vsi -volume of bone loss evaluated by superimposition principle, HU -mean value of bone density represented in Hounsfield units.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Reduction Levels from Superimposition Perspective: Pilot Study among Ukrainian Implantology Practice

Goncharuk-Khomyn

Keniuk

2018

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the possibility and efficiency of using adapted peri-implant bone evaluation method based on the principle of graphical superimposition and compare it to the possibilities of using sagittal sections of CBCT results to register the dynamics of peri-implant bone changes during the first year of implant functioning. Material and Methods: 108 pairs of DICOM data sets were selected and pre-anonymized and coded in Planmeca Romexis ® Viewer software. Each pair of datasets consisted of a CBCT file, obtained immediately after the installation of a dental implant, and one year after its operation. The first method of peri-implant bone changes evaluation was carried out by analyzing the sagittal sections of the CBCT data from the mesial and distal sides of the implant. The second method was followed by original algorithm, which included specific steps of superimposition of graphical images. Results: Superimposition method helped to establish volumetric parameter of circular bone reduction around dental implants after 1 year of their functioning. Such average values for the maxillary distal implants were 3.547 mm3, maxillary frontal implants -3.118 mm3, mandibular distal implants -2.614 mm3, mandibular frontal implants -2.456 mm 3. Correlation values between averages of vertical bone loss parameters and volumetric bone loss parameters riches r=0.954. Among all patients the highest peri-implant bone reduction rates were observed in the distal and frontal areas of the maxilla, even though statistical difference among such parameters of implants installed at the areas of mandible and maxilla was not significant (p > 0.05). Such observation was established during the analysis of results obtained both by digital sagittal cross section from CBCT results and by superimposition method. Conclusion: Using the superimposition principle allows us to evaluate the individual indicator of volumetric bone loss at the peri-implant region. The possibility of taking into account the parameters of bone tissue volume reduction, instead of just geometrical parameter of bone height, allows to individualize the parameters of bone loss among patients of different prosthetic rehabilitation group.

show abstract

Correlation between Bone Mineral Density Measured by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Hounsfield Units Measured by Diagnostic CT in Lumbar Spine

Cited by 195 publications

References 14 publications

Evaluation of Bone Thickness and Density in the Lower Incisors’ Region in Adults with Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusion using Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Evaluation of Bone Thickness and Density in the Lower Incisors’ Region in Adults with Different Types of Skeletal Malocclusion using Cone-beam Computed Tomography

Bone Mineral Density Loss in Thoracic and Lumbar Vertebrae Following Radiation for Abdominal Cancers

Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Reduction Levels from Superimposition Perspective: Pilot Study among Ukrainian Implantology Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About