Premium
Assessment of Peripheral Dual‐Energy X‐Ray Absorptiometry Measurements in Peri‐Implant Bone Defects in Dogs
Author(s) -
Sánchez Andrés R.,
Sheridan Phillip J.,
Lohse Christine,
Weaver Amy
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2004.75.5.658
Subject(s) - dual energy x ray absorptiometry , peri , medicine , dual energy , peripheral , implant , x ray , nuclear medicine , dentistry , bone mineral , surgery , physics , osteoporosis , optics
Background: The goal of this study was to assess the variability of peripheral dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry (pDEXA) measurements in peri‐implant bone defects in dogs. Methods: Ninety dental implants were inserted in edentulous areas of nine foxhound dogs and standardized peri‐implant bone defects were created on the mesial and distal aspect of each fixture (N = 144 total). The animals were sacrificed at 1, 2, and 3 months, respectively. Bone mineral density measurements (BMD) were performed with the use of pDEXA. The calibration of the system was determined by generating four quality control plots using a phantom of known density value. A series of three repeated measurements of the peri‐implant sites were made with repositioning of the region of interest. The measurements were performed at the mesial and distal peri‐implant sites. The variability of the three BMD measurements was expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV), which is calculated as ([SD/mean] × 100). The difference in the CV between the mesial and distal sites was evaluated using an analysis of variance model for repeated measures accounting for timing of sacrifice (month 1, 2, 3), dog (1 through 9), side (left, right), and adjacent defect regions between implants (1 through 4). Results: The calibration of the pDEXA measured by means of the phantom resulted in a deviation of 0.17%, 0.52%, –0.17%, and 0.00%, respectively, for each of the four assessments. The average CV for the 72 mesial and 72 distal peri‐implant sites was 5.22% ± 4.22% (median 3.50%; range 0.46% to 18.83%) and 5.37% ± 3.54% (median 4.64%; range 0.22% to 15.35%), respectively. After accounting for timing of sacrifice, dog, side, and position, there was not a statistically significant difference in the CV between the mesial and distal peri‐implant sites ( P = 0.75). This indicates that the peri‐implant site did not significantly affect the variability of the BMD measurements. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the pDEXA is a non‐invasive, convenient, and fast method to assess BMD around dental implants in animal studies. Limitations of the technique may have a negative impact in the precision of pDEXA when measuring small regions. J Periodontol 2004;75:658‐662 .