Folia morphologica · 2018
Evaluation of condylar structures on panoramic radiographs in adolescent patients with coeliac disease.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yavan M A, Isman E, Kocahan S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease (CD) is a common disorder that usually originates from calcium malabsorption. Thus, it is accepted that patients with CD have lo- wer bone mineral density than that of healthy individuals. The aim of this study was to assess condylar height, width, area, and perimeter on digital panoramic radiographs in patients with CD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic radiographs obtained from 44 patients with CD were age- and sex-matched with 44 Class 1 (ANB: 2 ± 2°) patients, and out- comes were analysed. Radiographs were digitised using Image J software, and condylar height, width, area, and perimeter were compared.
RESULTS: Condylar area (3.66 ± 1.02 cm2), perimeter (9.29 ± 1.38 cm), and height (2.69 ± 0.46 cm) values were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the control group than those in the patient group (area: 2.52 ± 0.63 cm2, perimeter: 8.47 ± 1.42 cm, height: 2.51 ± 0.37 cm), whereas width (coeliac: 2.83 ± 0.63 cm, control: 3.00 ± 0.59 cm) did not differ between the groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes may be due to the low bone density of patients with CD. A controlled trial conducted using a larger sample is needed to support and extend these data.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic radiographs obtained from 44 patients with CD were age- and sex-matched with 44 Class 1 (ANB: 2 ± 2°) patients, and out- comes were analysed. Radiographs were digitised using Image J software, and condylar height, width, area, and perimeter were compared.
RESULTS: Condylar area (3.66 ± 1.02 cm2), perimeter (9.29 ± 1.38 cm), and height (2.69 ± 0.46 cm) values were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the control group than those in the patient group (area: 2.52 ± 0.63 cm2, perimeter: 8.47 ± 1.42 cm, height: 2.51 ± 0.37 cm), whereas width (coeliac: 2.83 ± 0.63 cm, control: 3.00 ± 0.59 cm) did not differ between the groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes may be due to the low bone density of patients with CD. A controlled trial conducted using a larger sample is needed to support and extend these data.