4.1 Article

Osteoporotic alterations in a group of different ethnicity Brazilian postmenopausal women: An observational study

期刊

GERODONTOLOGY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 101-109

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ger.12322

关键词

bone loss; ethnic groups; osteoporosis; panoramic radiography; postmenopausal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To compare peripheral bone mineral density alterations among Brazilian postmenopausal women from three ethnic groups considering age and body mass index influence; to correlate their bone mineral density with the mandibular cortical index (MCI); and to evaluate the influence of age, body mass index and ethnicity in the MCI using risk factor analysis. Background: Osteoporosis risk is known to have ethical influences. However, little is known about the differences in ethnicity in radiomorphometric indices. Materials and methods: A total of 150 postmenopausal women with different ethnicities (Caucasian, Asian and Afro-descendant) who underwent peripheral dual X-ray absorptiometry and panoramic examination were included. Bone mineral density and MCI were assessed. Adjusted odds ratio analyses were performed on bone density and MCI considering the effect of age, ethnicity and body mass index. The correlations between the MCI and the dual X-ray absorptiometry results were made. Results: Old age, low body mass index and non-Afro-descendant were associated with low bone density. Compared with Afro-descendants, Asians and Caucasians have higher chances of having decreased bone mass. For the MCI, statistical analysis showed that age is the only variable associated with osteoporotic alterations in the mandible. Furthermore, an inverse correlation was found between the MCI and the T-scores. Conclusion: Bone density is higher in Brazilian Afro-descendant women than in Caucasians and Asians. Patient's age is associated with bone density and the MCI. The mandibular cortical index is inversely correlated with the peripheral densitometry results within the study ethnic population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据