دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Comparison of periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and CBCT in the evaluation of trabecular bone structure using fractal analysis.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Comparison of periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and CBCT in the evaluation of trabecular bone structure using fractal analysis.
المؤلفون: Yavuz E; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. esrsrt89@gmail.com., Yardimci S; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
المصدر: Oral radiology [Oral Radiol] 2024 Jul; Vol. 40 (3), pp. 394-400. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Feb 26.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article; Comparative Study
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Springer-Verlag Tokyo Country of Publication: Japan NLM ID: 8806621 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1613-9674 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09116028 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Oral Radiol Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: 2004- : Tokyo : Springer-Verlag Tokyo
Original Publication: Gifu, Japan : Japanese Society of Dental Radiology,
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography* , Fractals* , Radiography, Panoramic* , Cancellous Bone*/diagnostic imaging, Animals ; Sheep ; Radiography, Dental, Digital ; Mandible/diagnostic imaging
مستخلص: Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare imaging techniques to evaluate trabecular bone structure using Fractal Analysis (FA).
Methods: Fifteen sheep hemimandibles were used for this study. Digital images were obtained using periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). CBCT imaging was performed in standard (STD) and high-resolution (HR) modes. FA was conducted using ImageJ 1.3 software with the box-counting method on the images. The fractal dimension (FD) values were analyzed by the statistical software Jamovi 1.6.23. Statistical significance was accepted as p < 0.05.
Results: The highest mean FD value was the FD on digital periapical radiographs (PaFD) (1.28 ± 0.04), and the lowest mean FD value was the FD on standard resolution cone-beam computed tomography images (STD-CBCTFD) (1.12 ± 0.10). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the PaFD and the FD on digital panoramic radiographs (PanFD) (p = 0.485), the PaFD was found to be significantly higher than STD-CBCTFD (p < 0.001), and the FD on high-resolution cone-beam computed tomography images (HR-CBCTFD) (p = 0.007). The PanFD was found to be significantly higher than the STD-CBCTFD (p = 0.004).
Conclusion: According to our results, in the evaluation of trabecular bone structure using FA, periapical radiographs and panoramic radiographs have similar image quality for assessment of the FD. On the other hand, CBCT results did not correlate with results from any of the other techniques in this study.
(© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology.)
التعليقات: Erratum in: Oral Radiol. 2024 Jul;40(3):401. doi: 10.1007/s11282-024-00752-8. (PMID: 38607536)
References: Kato CN, Barra SG, Tavares NP, Amaral TM, Brasileiro CB, Mesquita RA, et al. Use of fractal analysis in dental images: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020;49(2):20180457. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180457 . (PMID: 10.1259/dmfr.20180457314295977026934)
Kisan S, Mishra S, Rout SB. Fractal dimension in medical imaging: a review. IRJET. 2017;4(5):1102–6.
Nandal S, Ghalaut P, Shekhawat H. A radiological evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants: An in-vivo study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2014;5(2):126–37. (PMID: 10.4103/0975-5950.154813259377214405952)
Lo Giudice R, Nicita F, Puleio F, Alibrandi A, Cervino G, Lizio AS, et al. Accuracy of periapical radiography and CBCT in endodontic evaluation. Int J Dent. 2018;16:2514243. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2514243 . (PMID: 10.1155/2018/2514243)
Sebring D, Kvist T, Buhlin K, Jonasson P, EndoReCo LH. Calibration improves observer reliability in detecting periapical pathology on panoramic radiographs. Acta Odontol Scand. 2021;79(7):554–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2021.1910728 . (PMID: 10.1080/00016357.2021.191072834077685)
Belgin CA, Serindere G. Fractal and radiomorphometric analysis of mandibular bone changes in patients undergoing intravenous corticosteroid therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020;130(1):110–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2019.12.009 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.oooo.2019.12.009)
Demiralp KÖ, Kurşun-Çakmak EŞ, Bayrak S, Akbulut N, Atakan C, Orhan K. Trabecular structure designation using fractal analysis technique on panoramic radiographs of patients with bisphosphonate intake: a preliminary study. Oral Radiol. 2019;35:23–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0321-4 . (PMID: 10.1007/s11282-018-0321-430484181)
Belgin CA, Serindere G. Evaluation of trabecular bone changes in patients with periodontitis using fractal analysis: A periapical radiography study. J Periodontol. 2020;91(7):933–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jper.19-0452 . (PMID: 10.1002/jper.19-0452)
Carvalho BF, de Castro JGK, de Melo NS, de Souza Figueiredo PT, Moreira-Mesquita CR, de Paula AP, et al. Fractal dimension analysis on CBCT scans for detecting low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Imaging Sci Dent. 2022;52(1):53. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20210172 . (PMID: 10.5624/isd.20210172353871028967487)
Bollen A, Taguchi A, Hujoel P, Hollender L. Fractal dimension on dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001;30(5):270–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600630 . (PMID: 10.1038/sj/dmfr/460063011571547)
Magat G, Sener SO. Evaluation of trabecular pattern of mandible using fractal dimension, bone area fraction, and gray scale value: comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography. Oral Radiol. 2019;35(1):35–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0316-1 . (PMID: 10.1007/s11282-018-0316-130484179)
Sharma M, Sharma D, RahiVerma D, Sharma M, Bishnoi RR. Comparing cone-beam computed tomography with panoramic radiography for the evaluation of bone quality. J Pharm Negat Results. 2022;13(10):784–94. https://doi.org/10.47750/pnr.2022.13.S10.085 . (PMID: 10.47750/pnr.2022.13.S10.085)
VadiatiSaberi B, Khosravifard N, Nooshmand K, DaliliKajan Z, Ghaffari ME. Fractal analysis of the trabecular bone pattern in the presence/absence of metal artifact–producing objects: comparison of cone-beam computed tomography with panoramic and periapical radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021;50(6):20200559. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20200559 . (PMID: 10.1259/dmfr.20200559)
Szabelska A, Tatara MR, Krupski W. Morphological, densitometric and mechanical properties of mandible in 5-month-old Polish Merino sheep. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0921-3 . (PMID: 10.1186/s12917-016-0921-3)
Esen A, Dolanmaz D, Tüz HH. Biomechanical evaluation of malleable noncompression miniplates in mandibular angle fractures: an experimental study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;50(5):e65-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.10.013 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.10.01322118919)
Bayrak S, Cakmak ESK, Kamalak H. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different dental restorative materials An in-vitro cone beam computed tomography study. Eur Oral Res. 2020;54(1):36–41. (PMID: 10.26650/eor.20200079325189097252535)
Hayek E, Aoun G, Bassit R, Nasseh I. Correlating radiographic fractal analysis at implant recipient sites with primary implant stability: an in vivo preliminary study. Cureus. 2020;12(1):e6539. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.6539 . (PMID: 10.7759/cureus.6539319299566939963)
White SC, Rudolph DJ. Alterations of the trabecular pattern of the jaws in patients with osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;88(5):628–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70097-1 . (PMID: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70097-110556761)
Soylu E, Coşgunarslan A, Çelebi S, Soydan D, Demirbaş AE, Demir O. Fractal analysis as a useful predictor for determining osseointegration of dental implant? A retrospective study. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00296-0 . (PMID: 10.1186/s40729-021-00296-0)
Barngkgei I, Halboub E, Almashraqi A. Effect of bisphosphonate treatment on the jawbone: an exploratory study using periapical and panoramic radiographic evaluation. Oral Radiol. 2019;35(2):159–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0358-4 . (PMID: 10.1007/s11282-018-0358-430484213)
Feitosa ÉF, Vasconcellos MM, Magalhães RJP, Domingos-Vieira AC, Visconti MA, Guedes FR, et al. Bisphophonate alterations of the jaw bones in individuals with multiple myeloma. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020;49(2):20190155. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190155 . (PMID: 10.1259/dmfr.20190155316705767026924)
Pham D, Jonasson G, Kiliaridis S. Assessment of trabecular pattern on periapical and panoramic radiographs: a pilot study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2010;68(2):91–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016350903468235 . (PMID: 10.3109/0001635090346823520085501)
Tugnait A, Clerehugh V, Hirschmann. Radiographic equipment and techniques used in general dental practice A survey of general dental practitioners in England and Wales. J Dent. 2003;31(3):197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00013-7 . (PMID: 10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00013-712726704)
Baksi BG, Fidler A. Image resolution and exposure time of digital radiographs affects fractal dimension of periapical bone. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(5):1507–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0639-3 . (PMID: 10.1007/s00784-011-0639-322124611)
Ho JT, Wu J, Huang HL, Chen MY, Fuh LJ, Hsu JT. Trabecular bone structural parameters evaluated using dental cone-beam computed tomography: cellular synthetic bones. BioMed Eng OnLine. 2013;12(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-12-115 . (PMID: 10.1186/1475-925X-12-115)
Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Aartman IH, Wismeijer D. The effect of scan parameters on cone beam CT trabecular bone microstructural measurements of the human mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(10):20130206. (PMID: 10.1259/dmfr.20130206244046033853518)
Pauwels R, Faruangsaeng T, Charoenkarn T, Ngonphloy N, Panmekia S. Effect of exposure parameters and voxel size on bone structure analysis in CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(8):20150078. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150078 . (PMID: 10.1259/dmfr.20150078260545724628422)
Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140224. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140224 . (PMID: 10.1259/dmfr.2014022425263643)
Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(6):393–7. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30969642 . (PMID: 10.1259/dmfr/3096964217082328)
Amuk M, Sarıbal GŞ, Ersu N, Yılmaz S. The effects of technical factors on the fractal dimension in different dental radiographic images. Eur Oral Res. 2023;57(2):68–74. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.2023984422 . (PMID: 10.26650/eor.20239844223752585510387138)
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: CBCT; Fractal analysis; Fractal dimension; Panoramic radiography; Periapical radiography
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20240226 Date Completed: 20240616 Latest Revision: 20240616
رمز التحديث: 20240617
DOI: 10.1007/s11282-024-00743-9
PMID: 38407759
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1613-9674
DOI:10.1007/s11282-024-00743-9