Bone microarchitecture at oral implant sites in ectodermal dysplasia (ED): A comparison between males and females
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012, 23 (11), pp. 1275 - 1282
- Issue Date:
|Silthampitag_et_al-2012-Clinical_Oral_Implants_Research.pdf||Published Version||474 kB|
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
Objective: The aim of this study was to analyse the microarchitecture of bone in association with implant placement in young ectodermal dysplasia (ED) patients. The general hypothesis was that the structural and morphological features of bone microarchitecture are different between males and females, which may influence clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: The bone harvesting is not additionally invasive, as the procedure was made at the time and site of implant placement. Twenty one samples (8 female, 13 male) were harvested from nine ED participants whose age ranged between 14 and 21 years and specified by the site of harvesting. Micro-CT analysis at 5 μm resolution was conducted on each sample. Specialized CT analysis of the three-dimensional (3-D) bone microstructure was made to compare structural parameters. In addition, two bone samples (one male, one female) were sent to the University of Michigan and analysed at 9 μm resolution. Results: No significant difference was found between male and female samples. Bone analysis of particular sites revealed that bone-specific surface (BS/BV) was found to be significantly higher in male than in female samples, whilst the mean values of 10 parameters, the grey scale value histograms and 3-D visualization showed that female samples had higher compact density than male samples. Conclusion: Microstructural analyses indicated that female ED bone was more compact and with greater trabecular connectedness than male bone. These features may enhance resistance to external force transfer of mastication compared with male bone. Further bone samples from other jaw bone areas will provide information on whether there are regional differences in jawbone quality and quantity, which may influence implant treatment outcomes, as well as follow-up analyses of treatment outcomes. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: