The role of quantitative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and follow-up of osteoporosis: A review
dc.authorwosid | KABAYEL, Derya DEMIRBAG/AAB-3712-2021 | |
dc.contributor.author | Kabayel, Derya Demirbag | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-06-12T11:07:59Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-06-12T11:07:59Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.department | Trakya Üniversitesi | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Use of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) in bone mineral density (BMD) measurement dates earlier than dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). However, when World Health Organization defined osteoporosis based on T score values, all BMD measurement methods except DXA lost popularity. Fear of radiation is another factor that reduced the popularity of QCT. Quantitative computed tomography evaluates trabecular, and cortical bone separately. Bone mineral density is measured volumetrically and bone is analyzed in three dimensions. Quantitative computed tomography's not being affected by arthrosic changes and vascular calcifications is a considerable advantage. It can be used in vertebra, femur, and peripheral skeleton. Radiation dose in peripheral application is negligible. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), even though not used in diagnosis of osteoporosis routinely, is a valuable tool in differential diagnosis as well as in research investigating the microstructure of the bone. Recently, bone strength can also be evaluated with QCT and MRI. In this review, we emphasize the role of QCT and MRI in diagnosis and follow-up of osteoporosis. | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.5606/tftrd.2016.33407 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | 295 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1302-0234 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1308-6316 | |
dc.identifier.issue | 3 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-84985914490 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusquality | N/A | en_US |
dc.identifier.startpage | 288 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.5606/tftrd.2016.33407 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/22267 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 62 | en_US |
dc.identifier.wos | WOS:000384958700016 | en_US |
dc.identifier.wosquality | Q4 | en_US |
dc.indekslendigikaynak | Web of Science | en_US |
dc.indekslendigikaynak | Scopus | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Baycinar Medical Publ-Baycinar Tibbi Yayincilik | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Turkiye Fiziksel Tip Ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi-Turkish Journal Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation | en_US |
dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | en_US |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | en_US |
dc.subject | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | en_US |
dc.subject | Osteoporosis | en_US |
dc.subject | Quantitative Computed Tomography | en_US |
dc.subject | Bone-Mineral Density | en_US |
dc.subject | X-Ray Absorptiometry | en_US |
dc.subject | Marrow Adipose-Tissue | en_US |
dc.subject | Postmenopausal Women | en_US |
dc.subject | Trabecular Bone | en_US |
dc.subject | Proximal Femur | en_US |
dc.subject | Distal Radius | en_US |
dc.subject | Microarchitecture | en_US |
dc.subject | Fracture | en_US |
dc.subject | Reduction | en_US |
dc.title | The role of quantitative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and follow-up of osteoporosis: A review | en_US |
dc.type | Review Article | en_US |