Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 12 April 2024

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed in the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Change history

References

  1. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kisan S, Mishra S, Rout SB. Fractal dimension in medical imaging: a review. IRJET. 2017;4(5):1102–6.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lauren Penniman and Alize Dreyer for improving the use of English in the manuscript. We confirm that this work is original, it is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

    Esra Yavuz & Selmi Yardimci

Authors
  1. Esra Yavuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Selmi Yardimci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esra Yavuz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was exempt for the present study by the Local Animal Ethics Committees at Akdeniz University.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: In the sentence beginning ‘The FD (FD), which measures this complexity,..’ in this article, the term ‘FD (FD)’ should have read ‘fractal dimension (FD)’.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yavuz, E., Yardimci, S. Comparison of periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and CBCT in the evaluation of trabecular bone structure using fractal analysis. Oral Radiol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-024-00743-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-024-00743-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation