• G. STOICA “Dunărea de Jos” University Galati
  • A. NEMTOI “Stefan cel Mare” University Suceava
  • Roxana Mihaela POPESCU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • B.I. DOBROVAT “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Emilia Adriana MARCIUC “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Danisia HABA “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi


Osteoporosis is characterized by weakened bones that put people at higher risk of fracture, especially in patients who have an advanced degree of damage and who follow or not treatment for osteoporosis. The aim of the study was to compare mandibular indices and mandibular bone density with the skeletal status investigated by osteodensitometry in patients with osteoporosis, with or without treatment. Material and methods: 40 patients with osteoporosis, divided into two equal groups, were evaluated by CBCT for the assessment of some mandibular indices that indicate the bone density at the cortical and cancellous bone level. The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS20.0, p=0.05. Results: For most of the evaluated parameters, higher values were recorded in the group of participants with osteoporosis but without treatment compared to the group of participants with osteoporosis, with treatment. The results showed a significant association between the mandibular cortical index and the type of treatment, with G1 patients presenting in a proportion of 25% the mandibular cortical index type 2, while G2 patients presented the mandibular cortical index type 2 in 58.33% of cases. In the case of G2 patients the cortical bone density values are significantly higher compared to the values corresponding to G1 patients. There are no significant differences in regard to cancellous bone density values between groups. Conclusions: The density of the mandibular bone is closely correlated with changes in the density and implicitly of the state of the skeleton of patients with osteoporosis, usually evaluated by bone osteodensitometry. The CBCT technique provides sufficient radiographic information that helps dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons to play an important role in the early diagnosis of mandibular osteoporosis.

Author Biographies

G. STOICA, “Dunărea de Jos” University Galati

Department of Dental Prosthetics

A. NEMTOI, “Stefan cel Mare” University Suceava

Faculty of Medicine and Biological Sciences
Department of Biomedical Sciences

Roxana Mihaela POPESCU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)

B.I. DOBROVAT, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)

Emilia Adriana MARCIUC, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)

Danisia HABA, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)


1. De Medeiros FCFL, Kudo GAH, Leme BG, et al. Dental implants in patients with osteoporosis: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 47(4): 480-491.
2. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis and Therapy. NIH Con-sens Statement 2000; 17(1): 145.
3. Cauley JA. Women and Health (Second Edition). Editors: Goldman M, Troisi R, Rexrode K: 2013, 929-942, chapter 61.
4. Amorim MA, Takayama L, Jorgetti V, Pereira RM. Comparative study of axial and femoral bone mineral density and parameters of mandibular bone quality in patients receiving dental implants. Os-teoporos Int 2006; 17: 1494-1500.
5. Drozdzowska B, Pluskiewicz W, Tarnawska B. Panoramic-based mandibular indices in relation to mandibular bone mineral density and skeletal status assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 361-367.
6. Dagistan S, Bilge OM. Comparison of antegonial index, mental index, panoramic mandibular index and mandibular cortical index values in the panoramic radiographs of normal males and male patients with osteoporosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 290-294.
7. Jowitt N, MacFarlane T, Devlin H, Klemetti E, Horner K. The reproducibility of the mandibular cortical index. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 141-144.
8. Devlin H, Horner K. Mandibular radiomorphometric indices in the diagnosis of reduced skeletal bone mineral density. Osteoporosis Int 2002; 13: 373-378.
9. Ledgerton D, Horner K, Devlin H, Worthington H. Radio-morphometric indices of the mandible in a British female population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 173-181.
10. Koh KJ, Kim KA. Utility of the computed tomography indices on cone beam computed tomography images in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in women. Imaging Sci Dent 2011; 41: 101-106.
11. Nemtoi Al, Ana Nemtoi A, Alexandra Fochi A, et al. CBCT Evaluation of the Mandibular Bone Quality in Relation to Skeletal. Status After Treatment with Strontium Renelate in Diabetic Patients. Rev Chim 2019; 70(11): 4113-4118.
12. Retzepi M., Donos N. The effect of diabetes mellitus on osseous healing. Clin Oral Impl.Res 2010; (21): 673-681.
13. Bouxsein M, Parker R, Greenspan S. Forearm Bone Mineral Densitometry Cannot be Used to Monitor Response to Alendronate Therapy in Postmenopausal Women. Osteoporos Int 1999; 10: 505-509 / doi: 10.1007/s001980050261.
14. Nils Heim, Werner Götz, Franz-Josef Kramer, and Anton Faron, Antiresorptive drug-related changes of the mandibular bone densitiy in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw patients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48(8): 20190132.