Browsing by Subject "Bone modeling"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Open Access
    Bone growth, modeling and remodeling in a supernumerary metatarsal bone associated with segmental gigantism in cutis marmorata telangiectatica congenita
    (Murcia : F. Hernández, 2004) Marotti, F.; Bertolani, M.F.; Palumbo, C.
    Skeletal structure and processes of bone growth, modeling and remodeling were studied in a supernumerary metatarsal surgically removed from a 3- year-old boy affected by Cutis Marmorata Telangiectatica Congenita (CMTC), associated with hypertrophy of the right upper and lower limbs and postaxial hexadactylism of the homolateral hand and foot. No other anomalies were observed. The excess of periosteal growth, due to congenital anomaly, induced an abnormal development of both modeling and remodeling processes. In bone modeling, osteoblast activity on the periosteal surface was not paralleled by osteoclast resorption along the wall of the medullary canal, and this enormously increased the cortical thickness. In bone remodeling, osteoclastic resorption cavities were not refilled by secondary Haversian systems, thus inducing a severe bone loss. While the alteration of bone growth and modeling can be ascribed to the congenital disease, the unbalanced bone remodeling appears mainly to depend on mechanical disuse of the supernumerary metatarsal.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Restricted
    Measurement of ridge alterations following tooth removal: a radiographic study in humans
    (Wiley, 2010-01-11) Moya Villaescusa, María José; Sánchez Pérez, A.; Dermatología, Estomatología, Radiología y Medicina Física
    Objective: The aim of this study was a radiographic mesiodistal analysis of the shape of the bone crest 3 months after tooth removal. Material and methods: One hundred single tooth extractions were performed on 100 patients because of orthodontic or prosthetic causes. Bite blocks were used for two radiographs: one on the day of extraction and the other after healing of the socket, 3 months later. These X-rays were used to determine: (1) the most apical distance of alveolar ridge resorption, with baseline as the line between bone-to-teeth contact (the greatest distance in bone resorption height) and (2) the mesiodistal distance (MDD) and mesial and distal angles arising after bone tissue modeling. Results: Significant differences (P<0.05) emerged between the MDDs of multiple- [8 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.09, 9.90] and single-root teeth (5.60 mm, 95% CI: 4.80, 6.50). However, mesial or distal angles or the most apical distance of alveolar ridge resorption did not differ (mean distance in height=4.32 mm, 95% CI: 3.85, 4.78; mean angle=24°). Conclusions: In this study, the post-extraction mesiodistal bone distance between teeth adjacent to the edentulous ridge depends on the size of the edentulous space. Nevertheless, the distance does not affect the distance in bone loss height. The distance of bone resorption height reaches a balance at the midpoint, which we consider indicative of stable healing. This resorption process must be considered when placing dental implants in fresh extraction sockets, especially in aesthetic sites, because the implant surfaces could be exposed after 3 months.