Advertisement

Oral Radiology

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 35–42 | Cite as

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

  • Guldane MagatEmail author
  • Sevgi Ozcan Sener
Original Article
  • 153 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Trabecular bone Fractal Mandibula Area fraction Gray scale value 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Magat Guldane and Sener Ozcan Sevgi declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights statement and informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Licata A. Bone density vs bone quality: what’s a clinician to do? Cleve Clin J Med. 2009;76(6):331–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(6):393–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yaşar F, Akgünlü F. Fractal dimension and lacunarity analysis of dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34(5):261–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Updike SX, Nowzari H. Fractal analysis of dental radiographs to detect periodontitis-induced trabecular changes. J Periodontal Res. 2008;43(6):658–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Celenk C, Celenk P. Relationship of mandibular and cervical vertebral bone density using computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(1):47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Minkin C, Marinho VC. Role of the osteoclast at the bone-implant interface. Adv Dent Res. 1999;13:49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sanchez I, Uzcategui G. Fractals in dentistry. J Dent. 2011;39(4):273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    McDavid W, Welander U, Brent Dove S, Tronjje G. Digital imaging in rotational panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1995;24(2):68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial RadiologyNecmettin Erbakan UniversityKaratay/KonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations