Top

26-02-2024 | Computed Tomography | Original Article

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

Authors: Esra Yavuz, Selmi Yardimci

Abstract

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.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

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.CrossRefPubMed

11.

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.CrossRefPubMed

12.

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.CrossRef

13.

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.CrossRef

14.

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.CrossRef

15.

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.CrossRefPubMed

16.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

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.CrossRefPubMed

19.

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.CrossRef

20.

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.CrossRefPubMed

21.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

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.CrossRefPubMed

23.

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.CrossRefPubMed

24.

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.CrossRefPubMed

25.

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.CrossRef

26.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

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.CrossRefPubMed

29.

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.CrossRefPubMed

30.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Comparison of periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and CBCT in the evaluation of trabecular bone structure using fractal analysis
Authors: Esra Yavuz
Selmi Yardimci
Publication date: 26-02-2024
Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Published in: Oral Radiology
Print ISSN: 0911-6028
Electronic ISSN: 1613-9674
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-024-00743-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content