Microradiography and microcomputed tomography comparative analysis in human bone cores harvested after maxillary sinus augmentation: a pilot study. Issue 10 (25th June 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Soardi, Carlo Maria; Clozza, Emanuele; Turco, Gianluca; Biasotto, Matteo; Engebretson, Steven P.; Wang, Hom‐Lay; Zaffe, Davide
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 25:Issue 10(2014:Oct.)
• Page Start: 1161
• Page End: 1168
• Publication Date: 2013-06-25
• Subjects: Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12225
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="clr12225-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="clr12225-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Objectives</title> <p>The aim of this study was to compare microradiography (MR) and microcomputed tomography (μCT) analysis of bone samples following maxillary sinus augmentation at different time periods and determine the relationships between measured area and volume fractions.</p> </sec> <sec id="clr12225-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Materials and methods</title> <p>Lateral window sinus grafts were performed on 10 patients using a mineralized human bone allograft (MHBA). At implant placement, 5–13 months after surgery, 10 bone core biopsies were harvested. Prior to histologic sectioning, bone samples were evaluated with μCT. The morphometric parameters computed by MR and μCT were compared using Pearson's correlation and Bland and Altman analysis and included hard tissue fraction (HV/TV:%), soft tissue fraction (SV/TV:%), vital bone fraction (BV/TV:%) and residual graft fraction (GV/TV:%).</p> </sec> <sec id="clr12225-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>Strong positive correlation between MR and μCT was found for HV/TV and SV/TV and BV/TV [<italic>r</italic> = 0.84, 0.84 and 0.69, respectively] but weak for GV/TV [<italic>r</italic> = 0.10].</p> </sec> <sec id="clr12225-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>μCT technology shows promising potential as an indicator of bone morphology changes; however, caution should be used in interpreting morphometric parameters, as the different methods reveal important biases.</p> </sec> </abstract>