Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Oral Radiology
Published in: Oral Radiology 1/2019

01-01-2019 | Original Article

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

Authors: Guldane Magat, Sevgi Ozcan Sener

Published in: Oral Radiology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

This study was performed to compare the fractal dimension (FD), bone area fraction (BAF), and gray scale value (GSV) on digital panoramic radiography (DPR) and cross-sectional cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using image analysis and to determine whether a relationship exists among parameters associated with bone quality.

Methods

Thirty edentulous human hemimandibles were scanned by DPR and CBCT. Ninety regions of interest (ROIs) were evaluated on DPR and CBCT images to calculate the FD and BAF. The GSV of the ROI on CBCT was also calculated.

Results

Statistically significant differences were observed in the FD values of the ROIs between DPR and CBCT (p = 0.002) and in the BAF values of ROIs between DPR and CBCT (p = 0.017). The Spearman’s correlation test revealed a statistically significant high correlation between the FD and BAF values of the ROIs on DPR and between the FD and BAF values of the ROIs on CBCT (p < 0.01). No significant correlations were observed between the GSVs of ROIs on CBCT and the FD values of ROIs on DPR, the BAF values of ROIs on DPR, the FD values of ROIs on CBCT, and the BAF values of ROIs on CBCT (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The GSV did not support the FD and BAF. Additionally, DPR and CBCT did not have similar image quality for assessing the FD, BAF, and GSV. In evaluating the trabecular structure, the use of panoramic radiographs should be continued because the image resolution of CBCT is lower and its generalized dose is higher than that of panoramic radiography. These results may serve as a reference for clinical practitioners using dental CBCT to analyze the trabecular structures of alveolar bones.
Literature
1.
Pauwels R, Nackaerts O, Bellaiche N, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, et al. Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. Br J Radiol. 2013;86(1021):20120135.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Licata A. Bone density vs bone quality: what’s a clinician to do? Cleve Clin J Med. 2009;76(6):331–6.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Southard TE, Southard KA, Jakobsen JR, Hillis SL, Najim CA. Fractal dimension in radiographic analysis of alveolar process bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996;82(5):569–76.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zeytinoğlu M, İlhan B, Dündar N, Boyacioğlu H. Fractal analysis for the assessment of trabecular peri-implant alveolar bone using panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(2):519–24.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(6):393–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Huh K-H, Baik J-S, Yi W-J, Heo M-S, Lee S-S, Choi S-C, et al. Fractal analysis of mandibular trabecular bone: optimal tile sizes for the tile counting method. Imaging Sci Dent. 2011;41(2):71–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Yaşar F, Akgünlü F. Fractal dimension and lacunarity analysis of dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34(5):261–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Updike SX, Nowzari H. Fractal analysis of dental radiographs to detect periodontitis-induced trabecular changes. J Periodontal Res. 2008;43(6):658–64.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Heo MS, Park KS, Lee SS, Choi SC, Koak JY, Heo SJ, et al. Fractal analysis of mandibular bony healing after orthognathic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;94(6):763–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Law AN, Bollen AM, Chen SK. Detecting osteoporosis using dental radiographs: a comparison of four methods. J Am Dent Assoc. 1996;127(12):1734–42.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Yasar F, Akgunlu F. The differences in panoramic mandibular indices and fractal dimension between patients with and without spinal osteoporosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(1):1–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Amer ME, Heo MS, Brooks SL, Benavides E. Anatomical variations of trabecular bone structure in intraoral radiographs using fractal and particles count analyses. Imaging Sci Dent. 2012;42(1):5–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Celenk C, Celenk P. Relationship of mandibular and cervical vertebral bone density using computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(1):47–51.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Shapurian T, Damoulis PD, Reiser GM, Griffin TJ, Rand WM. Quantitative evaluation of bone density using the Hounsfield index. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(2):290–7.PubMed
15.
Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, et al. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(3):416–24.PubMed
16.
Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for preoperative implant planning assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(6):1438–42.PubMed
17.
Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E. Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(5):503–6.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Mu TJ, Lee DW, Park KH, Moon IS. Changes in the fractal dimension of peri-implant trabecular bone after loading: a retrospective study. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2013;43(5):209–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Ilhan B, Güneri P, Saraçoglu A, Koca H, Boyacioglu H. A comparison of fractal dimension values of peri-implant bone and healthy contralateral side using panoramic radiographs. J Maxillofac Radiol. 2015;3(1):1.CrossRef
20.
Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Avsever H, Ozdemir T. Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for computer-assisted implant placement. Part I: relationship of radiographic gray density and implant stability. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15(6):893–906.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Honda E, Kurabayashi T. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(5):558–62.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(6):323–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Hua Y, Nackaerts O, Duyck J, Maes F, Jacobs R. Bone quality assessment based on cone beam computed tomography imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(8):767–71.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Araki K, Okano T. The effect of surrounding conditions on pixel value of cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(8):862–5.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Lee D-H, Ku Y, Rhyu I-C, Hong J-U, Lee C-W, Heo M-S, et al. A clinical study of alveolar bone quality using the fractal dimension and the implant stability quotient. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2010;40(1):19–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Stanford CM, Brand RA. Toward an understanding of implant occlusion and strain adaptive bone modeling and remodeling. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81(5):553–61.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Koh K-J, Park H-N, Kim K-A. Prediction of age-related osteoporosis using fractal analysis on panoramic radiographs. Imaging Sci Dent. 2012;42(4):231–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Melsen B, Lang N. Biological reactions of alveolar bone to orthodontic loading of oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(2):144–52.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Yi W-J, Heo M-S, Lee S-S, Choi S-C, Huh K-H, Lee S-P. Direct measurement of trabecular bone anisotropy using directional fractal dimension and principal axes of inertia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104(1):110–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
González-Martín O, Lee EA, Veltri M. CBCT fractal dimension changes at the apex of immediate implants placed using undersized drilling. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(8):954–7.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Huang Y, Dessel J, Liang X, Depypere M, Zhong W, Ma G, et al. Effects of immediate and delayed loading on peri-implant trabecular structures: a cone beam CT evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(6):873–83.CrossRefPubMed
32.
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.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Muller R, Van Campenhout H, Van Damme B, Van Der Perre G, Dequeker J, Hildebrand T, et al. Morphometric analysis of human bone biopsies: a quantitative structural comparison of histological sections and micro-computed tomography. Bone. 1998;23(1):59–66.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Ruegsegger P, Koller B, Muller R. A microtomographic system for the nondestructive evaluation of bone architecture. Calcif Tissue Int. 1996;58(1):24–9.CrossRefPubMed
35.
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;12:115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Corpas Ldos S, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, Huang Y, Naert I, Duyck J. Peri-implant bone tissue assessment by comparing the outcome of intra-oral radiograph and cone beam computed tomography analyses to the histological standard. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(5):492–9.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Gonzalez-Garcia R, Monje F. The reliability of cone-beam computed tomography to assess bone density at dental implant recipient sites: a histomorphometric analysis by micro-CT. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(8):871–9.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Felsenberg D, Boonen S. The bone quality framework: determinants of bone strength and their interrelationships, and implications for osteoporosis management. Clin Ther. 2005;27(1):1–11.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Minkin C, Marinho VC. Role of the osteoclast at the bone-implant interface. Adv Dent Res. 1999;13:49–56.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Sener E, Cinarcik S, Baksi BG. Use of fractal analysis for the discrimination of trabecular changes between individuals with healthy gingiva or moderate periodontitis. J Periodontol. 2015;86(12):1364–9.CrossRefPubMed
41.
White SC, Cohen JM, Mourshed FA. Digital analysis of trabecular pattern in jaws of patients with sickle cell anemia. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000;29(2):119–24.CrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
Southard TE, Southard KA, Krizan KE, Hillis SL, Haller JW, Keller J, et al. Mandibular bone density and fractal dimension in rabbits with induced osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;89(2):244–9.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Veltri M, Ferrari M, Balleri P. Correlation of radiographic fractal analysis with implant insertion torque in a rabbit trabecular bone model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(1):108–14.PubMed
45.
Sindeaux R, Figueiredo PT, de Melo NS, Guimaraes AT, Lazarte L, Pereira FB, et al. Fractal dimension and mandibular cortical width in normal and osteoporotic men and women. Maturitas. 2014;77(2):142–8.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Torres SR, Chen CS, Leroux BG, Lee PP, Hollender LG, Schubert MM. Fractal dimension evaluation of cone beam computed tomography in patients with bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(8):501–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Pawelzik J, Cohnen M, Willers R, Becker J. A comparison of conventional panoramic radiographs with volumetric computed tomography images in the preoperative assessment of impacted mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60(9):979–84.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Mischkowski RA, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Dreiseidler T, Keeve E, Zoller JE. Diagnostic quality of panoramic views obtained by a newly developed digital volume tomography device for maxillofacial imaging. Quintessence Int. 2007;38(9):763–72.PubMed
49.
Pittayapat P, Galiti D, Huang Y, Dreesen K, Schreurs M, Souza PC, et al. An in vitro comparison of subjective image quality of panoramic views acquired via 2D or 3D imaging. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(1):293–300.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Weissheimer A, Menezes LM, Sameshima GT, Enciso R, Pham J, Grauer D. Imaging software accuracy for 3-dimensional analysis of the upper airway. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(6):801 – 13.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Song YD, Jun SH, Kwon JJ. Correlation between bone quality evaluated by cone-beam computerized tomography and implant primary stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(1):59–64.PubMed
52.
McDavid W, Welander U, Brent Dove S, Tronjje G. Digital imaging in rotational panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1995;24(2):68–75.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Mori S, Endo M, Tsunoo T, Kandatsu S, Tanada S, Aradate H, et al. Physical performance evaluation of a 256-slice CT-scanner for four-dimensional imaging. Med Phys. 2004;31(6):1348–56.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Guldane Magat
Sevgi Ozcan Sener
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Oral Radiology / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0911-6028
Electronic ISSN: 1613-9674
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0316-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Oral Radiology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Trabecular structural changes in the mandibular condyle caused by degenerative osteoarthritis: a comparative study by cone-beam computed tomography imaging

Original Article

Evaluation of permanent and primary enamel and dentin mineral density using micro-computed tomography

Original Article

Evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography diagnostic image quality using cluster signal-to-noise analysis

Correction

Correction to: Extranodal lymphoma arising within the maxillary alveolus: a systematic review

Original Article

Evaluation of condyle position in patients with Angle Class I, II, and III malocclusion using cone-beam computed tomography panoramic reconstructions

Case Report

Diagnosis of ethmoid sinolith by cone-beam computed tomography: case report and literature review