Search

Osteoporosis is a disease in which bone mass and structural strength decrease, leading to increased fragility and susceptibility to fractures in the face, neck, spine, wrist, etc. It's a disease that doesn't display any symptoms until a break occurs; in other words, it's a silent illness. Sometime it also utilised frequently in dentistry application such that to detect osteoporosis during the operation or implanting on maxilla. This body of work shows that, despite major breakthroughs in medicine, there remains a unique role for the development of novel tools for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. In this work, we present an osteoporosis detection system developed using image processing and support vector machine (SVM) techniques. Compared to prior studies in this area, the data collected by the technology established in this study—which includes 50 sample photographs of the tibia—is of high quality. The proposed method achieves an impressively high level of accuracy (83.6% with 50 samples) because to the inclusion of the histogram feature and the use of tissue properties during feature extraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to determine the impact of implant placement depth (bonelevel [BL] and subcrestal [SC]) on soft-tissue inflammatory parameters bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and crestal bone resorption (CBR) in moderate cigarette-smokers and nonsmokers at 5 years postplacement. Patient details were recorded, including sex, age, smoking history, duration of implants in function, implant arch location, and daily toothbrushing and flossing habits. Peri-implant BOP, PD, and CBR were measured in all groups, and group comparisons were done; a probability score < .05 was selected as a value for statistical significance. Fifty-three patients (27 smokers, 26 nonsmokers) had BL implants, and 55 patients (28 smokers, 27 nonsmokers) had SC implants. Among all patients, PD was higher in smokers than nonsmokers (P < .05). The peri-implant sites that demonstrated BOP were higher (P < .05) in nonsmokers than smokers. Among smokers, the CBR was higher in those with BL implants than those with SC implants (P < .05). Among nonsmokers, there was a difference in BOP, PD, and CBR at the 5-year follow-up. At 5 years, SC implants demonstrated less CBR than BL implants. Peri-implant PD is higher in smokers than nonsmokers, irrespective of the implant placement depth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of moderate cigarette smoking on the clinical (bleeding on probing [BoP] and probing depth [PD]) and radiographic (crestal bone resorption [CBR]) parameters around cement- and screw-retained dental implants at 5-year follow-up. A questionnaire was used to collect information about age, gender, smoking history, duration of implants in function, jaw location of the implant, and daily toothbrushing and flossing. Peri-implant BoP, PD, and CBR were measured in all groups. Group comparisons were performed using 1-way analysis of variance, and for multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni post hoc adjustment test was performed. The level of significance was set at P <.05. Forty-eight patients (25 smokers and 23 nonsmokers) had cement-retained dental implants, and 48 (24 smokers and 24 nonsmokers) had screw-retained dental implants. Among patients with cement- and screw-retained dental implants, PD (P <.05) and CBR (P <.05) were significantly higher among smokers than nonsmokers. The peri-implant sites that demonstrated BoP were statistically significantly higher among nonsmokers (P <.05) than smokers among patients with cement- and screw-retained dental implants. There was no statistically significant difference in peri-implant PD and CBR among smokers with cement- and screw-retained dental implants. Among nonsmokers with cement and screw-retained dental implants, there was no statistically significant difference in BoP, PD, or CBR. Cigarette smoking is associated with an increased PD and CBR around cement- and screw-retained dental implants. Cigarette-smoking increases peri-implant soft-tissue inflammation as well as loss of crestal bone, and this relationship is independent of the type of implant retention protocol used. The author recommends that cement- and screw-retained dental implants are suitable for prosthesis restoration in nonsmokers. Further studies on dual smokers (individuals smoking cigarettes and other forms of tobacco products) are needed related to the clinicoradiographic inflammatory parameters around cement- and screw-retained dental implants [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusion Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) pose diagnostic challenges, and selecting appropriate imaging modalities is crucial for accurate assessment. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying TMDs.A comprehensive meta‐analysis was conducted, including studies that compared US and MRI for TMJ disorder assessments. Fixed‐effects models were utilized to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi‐squared test and I2 statistic. Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies included.Six studies were included, involving a total of 281 participants. The meta‐analysis demonstrated that MRI was statistically somewhat better than US in identifying TMJ disorders. The summary OR was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.46–0.90), and the summary RR was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68–0.95). Heterogeneity among the studies was low (χ2 = 2.73, df = 5, p = .74; I2 = 0%). Demographic variables revealed variations in sample size, gender ratio and mean age across the studies.This meta‐analysis provides evidence that MRI may be more effective than US in diagnosing TMDs. However, the study is limited by the small number of included studies and variations in demographic variables and study designs. Future research with larger samples and standardised protocols is essential to confirm and strengthen these findings. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US for TMJ disorders will aid clinicians in making informed decisions for effective TMJ disorder assessments and patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]