Journal List > J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg > v.37(6) > 1032509

J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Dec;37(6):496-504. Korean.
Published online December 27, 2011.  https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2011.37.6.496
Copyright © 2011 by The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
The bone density of mandible as the aging process in Koreans
Chul-Won Lee and Chul-Hwan Kim
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea.

Corresponding author: Chul-Hwan Kim. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, San 29, Anseo-dong, Cheonan 330-714, Korea. TEL: +82-41-550-1996, FAX: +82-41-551-8988, Email: kimchoms@dankook.ac.kr
Received July 26, 2011; Revised November 08, 2011; Accepted November 24, 2011.

Abstract

Introduction

This study compared the alveolar bone density of the mandible according to gender, age and position using Cone-beam computed tomography (CT).

Materials and Methods

The maxillofacial CT scan data was obtained from 60 Korean patients. In addition, the alveloar bone density of 5 males and 5 females with normal occlusion aged from 10 to 70 years was measured at the buccal cortical bone, cancellous bone and lingual cortical bone, as well as at the position of the incisors, canines, premolars and molars.

Results

The age-specific mean bone density was highest in patients in their third decade. The buccal cortical bone of the molars showed the highest bone density. Males in their fifties and sixties had a higher bone density in the cancellous bone in the region of the premolars and the buccal cortical bone of the molars, respectively, than females but there was no significant difference between males and females in the other parts. The cancellous bone density was highest in those in their twenties and thirties, and tended to decline up to their seventh decade.

Conclusion

These results revealed a significantly different bone density according to gender, age and position in the Korean population. In addition, it is possible to predict the bone density based on these results.

Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography; Mandibular alveolar bone density; Hounsfield unit

Figures


Fig. 1
Windows of EZ3D (2009 Professional Version, Vatech, Hwaseong, Korea) program, sagittal views.
Click for larger image


Fig. 2
Tomography image showing the site of root in EZ3D (2009 Professional Version, Vatech, Hwaseong, Korea) program.
Click for larger image


Fig. 3
Incisor point (between 41 to 42), canine point (between 43 to 44), premolar point (between 44 to 45), molar point (between 46 to 47).
Click for larger image


Fig. 4
Bone density is expressed as hounsfield unit in EZ3D. This image showing in the area between 1st molar and 2nd molar of mandible.
Click for larger image


Fig. 5
This image showing cancellous bone density in the area between 1st molar and 2nd molar of mandible.
Click for larger image

Tables


Table 1
Patient distribution according to age and gender
Click for larger image


Table 2
Mean bone density of mandible (hounsfield unit, mean±standard deviation)
Click for larger image


Table 3
Statistical analysis of bone density and comparison between male and female (hounsfield unit, mean±standard deviation)
Click for larger image


Table 4
Statistical analysis of bone density as aging process (hounsfield unit, mean±standard deviation)
Click for larger image


Table 5
Statistical analysis of bone density in each site (hounsfield unit, mean±standard deviation)
Click for larger image

References
1. Neufeld JO. Changes in the trabecular pattern of the mandible following the loss of teeth. J Pro Den 1958;8:685–697.
2. Denissen HW, Veldhuis HA, van Faassen F. Implant placement in the atrophic mandible: an anatomic study. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:260–263.
3. von Wowern N, Stoltze K. Age differences in cortical width of mandibles determined by histoquantitation. Scand J Dent Res 1979;87:225–233.
4. von Wowern N, Stoltze K. Sex and age differences in bone morphology of mandibles. Scand J Dent Res 1978;86:478–485.
5. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B, Nilsson M. Trabecular bone volume and bone mineral density in the mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997;26:101–106.
6. Pouilles JM, Tremollieres F, Todorovsky N, Ribot C. Precision and sensitivity of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in spinal osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 1991;6:997–1002.
7. Berman CL. Osseointegration. Complications. Prevention, recognition, treatment. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:635–663.
8. Kim HW, Huh KH, Park KS, Kim JH, Lee WJ, Huh MS, et al. Correlation of bone quality in radiographic images with clinical bone quality classification. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2006;36:25–32.
9. Kim JD. Assessment of the measurement method of the bone mineral density on Cu-equivalent image. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2000;30:101–108.
10. Lee BD. Diagnostic method of osteoporosis using dental radiographic images. J Korean Dent Assoc 2004;42:184–189.
11. Cameron JR, Sorenson J. Measurement of bone mineral in vivo. An improved method. Science 1963;142:230–232.
12. Engquist B, Bergendal T, Kallus T, Linden U. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointegrated implants supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:129–134.
13. Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991;62:2–4.
14. Payne JB, Reinhardt RA, Nummikoski PV, Patil KD. Longitudinal alveolar bone loss in postmenopausal osteoporotic/osteopenic women. Osteoporos Int 1999;10:34–40.
15. Sukovic P. Cone beam computed tomography in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6 Suppl 1:31–36.
16. Christiansen C, Rödbro P, Jensen H. Bone mineral content in the forearm measured by photon absorptiometry. Principles and reliability. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1975;35:323–330.
17. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albreksson T, editors. Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. pp. 199-209.
18. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive boen loading. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;6:23–31.
19. Carter DR, Hayes WC. Bone compressive strength: the influence of density and strain rate. Science 1976;194:1174–1176.
20. Rice JC, Cowin SC, Bowman JA. On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density. J Biomech 1988;21:155–168.
21. Duckmanton NA, Austin BW, Lechner SK, Klineberg IJ. Imaging for predictable maxillary implants. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:77–80.
22. Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:79–84.
23. Misch CE, Kircos LT. Diagnostic imaging and techniques. In: Misch CE, editor. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1999. pp. 73-87.
24. Ay S, Gursoy UK, Erselcan T, Marakoglu I. Assessment of mandibular bone mineral density in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:327–331.
25. Bodic F, Hamel L, Lerouxel E, Baslé MF, Chappard D. Bone loss and teeth. Joint Bone Spine 2005;72:215–221.
26. Gorustovich AA, Espósito MA, Guglielmotti MB, Giglio MJ. Mandibular bone remodeling under a choline-deficient diet: a histomorphometric study in rats. J Periodontol 2003;74:831–837.
27. Elovic RP, Hipp JA, Hayes WC. Maxillary molar extraction causes increased bone loss in the mandible of ovariectomized rats. J Bone Miner Res 1995;10:1087–1093.
28. August M, Chung K, Chang Y, Glowacki J. Influence of estrogen status on endosseous implant osseointegration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:1285–1289.
29. Pasco JA, Henry MJ, Kotowicz MA, Collier GR, Ball MJ, Ugoni AM, et al. Serum leptin levels are associated with bone mass in nonobese women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:1884–1887.
30. César-Neto JB, Benatti BB, Neto FH, Sallum AW, Sallum EA, Nociti FH. Smoking cessation may present a positive impact on mandibular bone quality and periodontitis-related bone loss: a study in rats. J Periodontol 2005;76:520–525.
31. Parfitt GJ. An investigation of the normal variations in alveolar bone trabeculation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1962;15:1453–1463.
32. Henrikson PA, Wallenius K. The mandible and osteoporosis. J Oral Rehabil 1974;1:67–74.
33. Ulm CW, Kneissel M, Hahn M, Solar P, Matejka M, Donath K. Characteristics of the cancellous bone of edentulous mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:125–130.
34. Dutra V, Yang J, Devlin H, Susin C. Radiomorphometric indices and their relation to gender, age, and dental status. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:479–484.
35. von Wowern N. Bone mass of mandibles. In vitro and in vivo analyses. Dan Med Bull 1986;33:23–44.
36. Pavlova MN, Peliakov AN. Age changes in the mineralization of the human femur according to quantitative microradiographic data. Arkh Anat Gistol Embriol 1971;61:83–88.
37. Klemetti E, Vainio P, Kröger H. Muscle strength and mineral densities in the mandible. Gerodontology 1994;11:76–79.
38. Yong SJ, Lim SK, Huh KB, Park BM, Kim NH. Bone mineral density of normal Korean adults. J Korean Med Assoc 1988;31:1350–1358.
39. Ding M, Dalstra M, Danielsen CC, Kabel J, Hvid I, Linde F. Age variations in the properties of human tibial trabecular bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79:995–1002.
40. Gordan GS, Genant HK. The aging skeleton. Clin Geriatr Med 1985;1:95–118.
41. Park HS. An anatomical study on success rate of microscrew implants for orthodontic anchorage. Korean J Orthod 2002;32:435–441.
42. Goldsmith NF, Johnston JO, Picetti G, Garcia C. Bone mineral in the radius and vertebral osteoporosis in an insured population. A correlative study using 125-I photon absorption and miniature roentgenography. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1973;55:1276–1293.
43. Mazess RB. On aging bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982;(165):239–252.
44. Mazess RB, Cameron JR. Bone mineral content in normal U.S. whites. In: Mazess RB, editor. International Conferece on bone mineral measurement. Washington, DC: NIH; 1974. pp. 675-683.
45. Riggs BL, Wahner HW, Seeman E, Offord KP, Dunn WL, Mazess RB, et al. Changes in bone mineral density of the proximal femur and spine with aging. Differences between the postmenopausal and senile osteoporosis syndromes. J Clin Invest 1982;70:716–723.
46. Aloia JF, Vaswani A, Ellis K, Yuen K, Cohn SH. A model for involutional bone loss. J Lab Clin Med 1985;106:630–637.
47. Lindh C, Nilsson M, Klinge B, Petersson A. Quantitative computed tomography of trabecular bone in the mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996;25:146–150.