Association Between Mandibular Lesion Size and Mandibular Bone Quality Index

Nazgol Ravanbakhsh; Binali Çakır; Gamze Nur Bayramoğlu

doi:10.5327/2525-5711.516

Authors

Nazgol Ravanbakhsh Postgraduate Student, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, 25240, Turkey. https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1075-4226
Binali Çakır Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, 25240, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8525-1444
Gamze Nur Bayramoğlu Postgraduate Student, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, 25240, Turkey https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8402-4308

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5327/2525-5711.516

Keywords:

Cone-beam computed tomography, mandible, bone quality, Bone Quality Index, Central jaw lesions

Abstract

Background:The present study aimed to evaluate the association between the size of mandibular lesions and mandibular bone quality using the Bone Quality Index (BQI) based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images.

Material and Methods: This retrospective radiographic study evaluated CBCT images. A total of 49 histopathologically confirmed mandibular lesions were included. Mandibular bone quality was assessed using BQI on sagittal sections, while lesion size was measured on panoramic reconstruction images. Statistical analyses were performed to investigate associations between lesion dimensions and bone-quality characteristics.

Results: No statistically significant association was found between lesion size and BQI (p>0.05). Findings regarding other variables were interpreted as exploratory.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, no definitive association was observed between the size of mandibular lesions and mandibular bone quality assessed by BQI. The findings indicate that BQI primarily reflects local osseous characteristics rather than serving as a direct determinant of lesion size. Further prospective studies with larger, homogeneous cohorts are needed to better understand these local dynamics.

References

1. Stauber M, Müller R. Age-related changes in trabecular bone microstructures: Global and local morphometry. Osteoporosis International. 2006;17(4). doi:10.1007/s00198-005-0025-6

2. MacDonald-Jankowski DS. Keratocystic odontogenic tumour: Systematic review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2011. doi:10.1259/dmfr/29949053

3. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is Cone-Beam CT and How Does it Work? Dental Clinics of North America. 2008. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005

4. Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(8). doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02076.x

5. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(2). doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028

6. Drage NA, Palmer RM, Blake G, Wilson R, Crane F, Fogelman I. A comparison of bone mineral density in the spine, hip and jaws of edentulous subjects. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(4). doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01379.x

7. Molteni R. Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2013.04.013

8. Horner K, Devlin H. The relationship between mandibular bone mineral density and panoramic radiographic measurements. J Dent. 1998;26(4). doi:10.1016/S0300-5712(97)00020-1

9. Munhoz L, Morita L, Nagai AY, Moreira J, Arita ES. Mandibular cortical index in the screening of postmenopausal at low mineral density risk: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2021 May 1;50(4):20200514. doi:10.1259/DMFR.20200514 PubMed PMID: 33591840.

10. Gulsahi A. Bone Quality Assessment for Dental Implants. Implant Dentistry - The Most Promising Discipline of Dentistry. 2011 Sep 30. doi:10.5772/16588

11. Esfahanizadeh N, Davaie S, Rokn AR, Daneshparvar HR, Bayat N, Khondi N, et al. Correlation between bone mineral density of jaws and skeletal sites in an Iranian population using dual X-ray energy absorptiometry. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013 Jul;10(4):460. PubMed PMID: 24130580. doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.118487

12. Peñarrocha M a c, Uribe R b, Balaguer J b. Immediate implants after extraction. A review of the current situation [Implantes inmediatos a la exodoncia. Situación actual]. Medicina Oral. 2004;9(3).

13. Kitisubkanchana J, Reduwan NH, Poomsawat S, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S, Wongchuensoontorn C. Odontogenic keratocyst and ameloblastoma: radiographic evaluation. Oral Radiol. 2021;37(1):55-65. doi:10.1007/s11282-020-00425-2.

14. 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

15. Klemetti E, Kolmakov S, Kröger H. Pantomography in assessment of the osteoporosis risk group. Scand J Dent Res. 1994;102(1):68–72. doi:10.1111/J.1600-0722.1994.TB01156.X PubMed PMID: 8153584.

16. Ito M, Nakata T, Nishida A, Uetani M. Age-related changes in bone density, geometry and biomechanical properties of the proximal femur: CT-based 3D hip structure analysis in normal postmenopausal women. Bone. 2011;48(3). doi:10.1016/j.bone.2010.11.007

17. Vári B, Győri F, Katona Z, Berki T. The Impact of Age and Body Composition on Bone Density among Office Worker Women in Hungary. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jun 1;20(11):5976. doi:10.3390/IJERPH20115976 PubMed PMID: 37297580.