Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Annual Bone Loss (annual + bone_loss)
Selected AbstractsSmoking May Impair the Bone Protective Effects of Nutritional Calcium: A Population-Based Approach,JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH, Issue 6 2003Joonas Sirola PhD Abstract Postmenopausal women were randomly selected to investigate the effects of smoking on prevention of bone loss with nutritional calcium. DXA was performed twice, and smoking and calcium intake habits were inquired through the mail in 954 women. Smoking dampened the bone protective effects of nutritional calcium. This may reflect the pathophysiology underlying smoking-induced bone loss postmenopause. This study evaluated the effect of smoking on the bone protective properties of nutritional calcium. Of the random sample of 954 peri- and postmenopausal women selected from the Osteoporosis Risk Factor and Prevention (OSTPRE) study cohort (n = 13,100) in Kuopio, Finland, 182 had smoked at some time (ever smokers) and 772 had never smoked. Women were divided in tertiles according to self-reported dairy nutritional calcium intake (mg/day): <648 (1st), 648-927 (2nd), >927 (3rd). Bone mineral density at lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) was measured with DXA at baseline in 1989-1991 and at the 5-year follow-up in 1994-1997. In a linear regression model, nutritional calcium intake did not predict annual bone loss in smokers. These results were similar in the subanalysis on 71 current smokers (at both baseline and 5-year measurements) and on 85 past smokers. In never smokers, a statistically significant linear trend was observed between calcium intake and annual bone loss at LS, but at FN only after adjustment for age, weight, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and other covariates. In analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), no differences in bone loss rate were observed between calcium intake tertiles among smokers. In nonsmokers, the annual bone loss rate was lower in the second (,0.41%) and the third (,0.35%) tertile compared with the first tertile (,0.61%) at LS (p < 0.05) and lower in the third tertile (,0.55%) than in first tertile (,0.72%) at FN after adjustment for age, weight, HRT, and other covariates (p < 0.05). When smokers were added to the nonsmoker group, the differences in bone loss rate between calcium intake tertiles disappeared. In addition, in ANCOVA, the term of interaction between smoking and calcium intake was statistically significant at LS only. In conclusion, smoking seems to impair the bone protective effects of nutritional calcium in postmenopausal women, more clearly in LS than FN. [source] Retinol Intake and Bone Mineral Density in the Elderly: The Rancho Bernardo Study,JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH, Issue 8 2002Joanne H. E. Promislow Abstract Retinol is involved in bone remodeling, and excessive intake has been linked to bone demineralization, yet its role in osteoporosis has received little evaluation. We studied the associations of retinol intake with bone mineral density (BMD) and bone maintenance in an ambulatory community-dwelling cohort of 570 women and 388 men, aged 55,92 years at baseline. Regression analyses, adjusted for standard osteoporosis covariates, showed an inverse U-shaped association of retinol, assessed by food-frequency questionnaires in 1988,1992, with baseline BMD, BMD measured 4 years later, and BMD change. Supplemental retinol use, reported by 50% of women and 39% of men, was an effect modifier in women; the associations of log retinol with BMD and BMD change were negative for supplement users and positive for nonusers at the hip, femoral neck, and spine. At the femoral neck, for every unit increase in log retinol intake, supplement users had 0.02 g/cm2 (p = 0.02) lower BMD and 0.23% (p = 0.05) greater annual bone loss, and nonusers had 0.02 g/cm2 (p = 0.04) greater BMD and 0.22% (p = 0.19) greater bone retention. However, among supplement users, retinol from dietary and supplement sources had similar associations with BMD, suggesting total intake is more important than source. In both sexes, increasing retinol became negatively associated with skeletal health at intakes not far beyond the recommended daily allowance (RDA), intakes reached predominately by supplement users. This study suggests there is a delicate balance between ensuring that the elderly consume sufficient vitamin A and simultaneously cautioning against excessive retinol supplementation. [source] Ten-Year Results of a Prospective Study Using Porous-Surfaced Dental Implants and a Mandibular OverdentureCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 4 2002Douglas Deporter DDS ABSTRACT Background: Numerous investigators have used osseointegrated dental implants as retention for mandibular overdentures, but few have reported 10-year outcomes or incorporated carefully standardized radiographs to document crestai bone loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to use a prospective clinical trial design to assess the performance of short sintered porous-surfaced dental implants with a mandibular complete overdenture when all patients in the trial had undergone 10 years of continuous function. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two fully edentulous patients, most with advanced alveolar ridge resorption, each received three free-standing Endopore implants (7,10 mm in length, mean length, 8.7 mm; Innova Corporation, Toronto, ON, Canada) in the mandibular symphysis region. After 10 weeks of submerged healing, these implants were used to support an overdenture. Carefully standardized radiographs, using a customized stainless steel filmholder attached to each implant and the x-ray tube, were collected at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, yearly to 5 years, and then again at 7 and 10 years. Results: Life table analysis revealed a 10-year implant survival of 92.7% and a mean annual bone loss after year 1 of 0.03 mm. Conclusion: Short free-standing dental implants with a sintered porous surface used for implant fixation are a predictable and effective means of retaining a mandibular overdenture in patients with advanced mandibular ridge resorption. [source] Long-term, retrospective evaluation (implant and patient-centred outcome) of the two-implant-supported overdenture in the mandible.CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 5 2010Part 2: marginal bone loss Abstract Objective: In part 2 of this long-term, retrospective study on the two-implant-supported overdenture in the mandible, the annual marginal bone loss was evaluated in detail and parameters, with a significant effect on the annual bone loss, were verified. Material and methods: For all 495 patients with an overdenture in the mandible at least 5 years in function, data up to their last follow-up visit had been collected, including long-cone radiographs (taken at the abutment connection and after years 1, 3, 5, 8, 12 and 16 of loading) and probing data at their last evaluation. General information (medical history, implant data, report on surgery) was retrieved from the patient's file. Two hundred and forty-eight patients had been clinically examined recently. For the others, information on bone level and probing depths were retrieved from the patient's files, as all patients had been enrolled in our annual follow-up schedule. Results: The mean annual bone loss on a site level (without considering the first year of bone remodelling) after 3 years of loading was 0.08 mm/year (SD=0.22, n=1105), after 5 years of loading 0.07 mm/year (SD=0.14, n=892), after 8 years of loading 0.06 mm/year (SD=0.12, n=598), after 12 years 0.04 mm/year (SD=0.07, n=370) and 0.05 mm/year (SD=0.05, n=154) after 16 years of loading. Ongoing bone loss was seen in a number of implants (n=26) with the annual bone loss exceeding 0.2 mm. Some factors clearly showed a significant impact on bone loss: smoking (,10 cigarettes/day), GBR, the presence of dehiscence and bone quantity(the latter only during the first year). The probing data showed a favourable condition, with <1.2% of the approximal pockets being ,6 mm, and 4.1%=5 mm. Conclusions: The mean annual bone loss over the study period was <0.1 mm/year after the first year of loading. However, a small number (2.5%) of the implants showed continuing bone loss. To cite this article: Vercruyssen M, Quirynen M. Long-term, retrospective evaluation (implant and patient-centred outcome) of the two-implants-supported overdenture in the mandible. Part 2: marginal bone loss. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 466,472. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01902.x [source] | ||||||||||