scholarly journals Clinical evaluation of Alveolar bone density measurement

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 65-70
Author(s):  
Shogo Kanda ◽  
Yuji Ehara ◽  
Yoshiyuki Onishi ◽  
Yoshitomo Takaishi ◽  
Hidehito Yasumitsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Density ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Density Measurement ◽  
Bone Density Measurement

A Comparison of the Application between Different Proportional nHA / PLA in Alveolar Bone Preservation

2014 ◽  
Vol 602-603 ◽  
pp. 615-619
Author(s):  
Yang Bai ◽  
Na Liu ◽  
Jian Feng Chen ◽  
Li Sheng Zhao ◽  
Bin Deng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Density ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Density Measurement ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Bone Density Measurement ◽  
Group I ◽  
Complete Absorption ◽  
Bone Preservation ◽  
Selection Of

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of different proportional nHA / PLA application in alveolar bone preservation. Methods: After extraction, apply extraction socket filling based on the alveolar bone defect model due to absorption in Beagle dog. Implant materials are divided into 3 different groups: nHA / PLAI, nHA / PLAII and the control group. Samples of the alveolar bone were collected at Week 4 and 8, respectively for the bone resorption assessment, bone density measurement, and histological examination. Results: After nHA / PLA implantation, the alveolar bone preservation was significantly improved. There was no difference in the alveolar bone preservation between the nHA / PLAI and nHA / PLAII groups. However, the sample which are 8w from group I, have higher bone density and have complete absorption in their dental material nest .Therefore group I is better than group II. Conclusions: The results can provide a reliable basis for the application of alveolar bone preservation in basic research and selection of clinical materials.

scholarly journals Bone Mineral Density Measurements: Are they Worth While?

1996 ◽  
Vol 89 (8) ◽  
pp. 457-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
D J Torgerson ◽  
C Donaldson ◽  
D M Reid
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Bone Density ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Diagnostic Tool ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Density Measurement ◽  
Bone Density Measurement ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Density Measurements ◽  
Bone Mineral Measurements

Bone mineral density measurements have been criticized on the grounds that they are not a worth-while screening tool. In this paper we argue that bone mineral measurements can be an efficient diagnostic tool even if they are not of proven value for screening. There is complex relationship between the costs of a measurement, the intervention and the predictive value of the test all of which must be accounted for when assessing the value of a bone density measurement. For bone density measurements to be used for screening, a wider evaluation needs to be undertaken compared with that for their use as a diagnostic tool. We address some common objections, for example, that low compliance with screening would undermine efficiency, and show that these are not relevant. Evaluations of screening need to address issues that are likely to affect efficiency.

DXA for bone density measurement in small rats weighing 150–250 grams

Bone ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.W. Lu ◽  
J.N. Briody ◽  
R. Howman-Giles ◽  
A. Trube ◽  
C.T. Cowell
Keyword(s):  
Bone Density ◽  
Density Measurement ◽  
Bone Density Measurement

Recommendations for the Application of Bone Density Measurement: What Can You Believe?

1997 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah A. Marshall ◽  
Trevor A. Sheldon ◽  
Egon Jonsson
Keyword(s):  
Bone Density ◽  
Density Measurement ◽  
Public Organizations ◽  
Population Screening ◽  
Bone Density Measurement ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Diagnosis Of Osteoporosis ◽  
Potential Applications

AbstractThis study examined the conclusions of published reports that review the literature and make recommendations about appropriate applications of bone density measurement. It is based on a survey of 22 organizations producing such reports between 1986 and Spring 1995. Overall, the application of bone density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis was supported by 65% of reports, by 44% for the monitoring and follow-up of patients with previously diagnosed disease, and by 59% for monitoring and follow-up of patients receiving treatment that may affect their bone density. A smaller proportion of reports from government and public organizations compared with other types of organizations and a smaller proportion of reports using more rigorous methods supported the applications for bone density measurement identified in the survey. A larger proportion of the reports published after 1990 compared with those published between 1986 and 1990 support the applications of bone density measurement, with the exception of population screening. The results of this survey suggest that there is considerable disagreement about the potential applications of bone density measurement. Publicly funded organisations and those using more rigorous methods tended to be more conservative in their conclusions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document