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
- 250 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsTrabecular bone Fractal Mandibula Area fraction Gray scale value
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.
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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