Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 993–998 | Cite as

Fractal Analysis of Periapical Bone from Lossy Compressed Radiographs: A Comparison of Two Lossy Compression Methods

  • B. Güniz Baksi
  • Aleš Fidler


The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of two lossy image compression methods on fractal dimension (FD) calculation. Ten periapical images of the posterior teeth with no restorations or previous root canal therapy were obtained using storage phosphor plates and were saved in TIF format. Then, all images were compressed with lossy JPEG and JPEG2000 compression methods at five compression levels, i.e., 90, 70, 50, 30, and 10. Compressed file sizes from all images and compression ratios were calculated. On each image, two regions of interest (ROIs) containing healthy trabecular bone in the posterior periapical area were selected. The FD of each ROI on the original and compressed images was calculated using differential box counting method. Both image compression and analysis were performed by a public domain software. Altogether, the FD of 220 ROIs was calculated. FDs were compared using ANOVA and Dunnett tests. The FD decreased gradually with compression level. A statistically significant decrease of the FD values was found for JPEG 10, JPEG2000 10, and JPEG2000 30 compression levels (p < 0.05). At comparable file sizes, the JPEG induced a smaller FD difference. In conclusion, lossy compressed images with appropriate compression level may be used for FD calculation.


Compression Computer analysis Computer-assisted detection 


  1. 1.
    Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S: Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiol 35:393–397, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee RL, Dacre JE, James MF: Image processing assessment of femoral osteopenia. J Digit Imaging 10:218–221, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sankar D, Thomas T: A new fast fractal modeling approach for the detection of microcalcifications in mammograms. J Digit Imaging 23:538–546, 2010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen SK, Oviir T, Lin CH, Leu LJ, Cho BH, Hollender L: Digital imaging analysis with mathematical morphology and fractal dimension for evaluation of periapical lesions following endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 100:467–472, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yu YY, et al: Fractal dimension analysis of periapical reactive bone in response to root canal treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107:283–288, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Updike SX, Nowzari H: Fractal analysis of dental radiographs to detect periodontitis-induced trabecular changes. J Periodontal Res 43:658–664, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heo MS, et al: Fractal analysis of mandibular bony healing after orthognathic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 94:763–767, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bollen AM, Taguchi A, Hujoel PP, Hollender LG: Fractal dimension on dental radiographs. Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiol 30:270–275, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ergun S, Saracoglu A, Guneri P, Ozpinar B: Application of fractal analysis in hyperparathyroidism. Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiol 38:281–288, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Majumdar S, Weinstein RS, Prasad RR: Application of fractal geometry techniques to the study of trabecular bone. Med Phys 20:1611–1619, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miles DA, Razzano MR: The future of digital imaging in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 44:427–438, 2000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wenzel A, Moystad A: Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand 68:106–114, 2010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erickson BJ: Irreversible compression of medical images. J Digit Imaging 15:5–14, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wallace GK: The JPEG still picture compression picture standard. Commun Assoc Computing Machinery 34:30–44, 1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 1 IIF: Information technology—JPEG 2000 image coding system: Core coding system [WG 1 N 1890], September 2000Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fidler A, Likar B, Skaleric U: Lossy JPEG compression: easy to compress, hard to compare. Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiol 35:67–73, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siragusa M, McDonnell DJ: Indirect digital images: limit of image compression for diagnosis in endodontics. Int Endod J 35:991–995, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koenig L, Parks E, Analoui M, Eckert G: The impact of image compression on diagnostic quality of digital images for detection of chemically-induced periapical lesions. Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiol 33:37–43, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fidler A, Likar B, Pernus F, Skaleric U: Comparative evaluation of JPEG and JPEG2000 compression in quantitative digital subtraction radiography. Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiol 31:379–384, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shrout MK, Potter BJ, Hildebolt CF: The effect of image variations on fractal dimension calculations. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 84:96–100, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Irfanview (2010) Accessed 18 Dec 2010
  22. 22.
    Shrout MK, Roberson B, Potter BJ, Mailhot JM, Hildebolt CF: A comparison of 2 patient populations using fractal analysis. J Periodontol 69:9–13, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ImageJ (2010) Accessed 18 Dec 2010
  24. 24.
    FracLac (2010) Accessed 18 Dec 2010
  25. 25.
    Southard TE, Southard KA: Detection of simulated osteoporosis in maxillae using radiographic texture analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 43:123–132, 1996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 88:628–635, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sarkar N, Chaudhuri BB: An efficient differential box-counting approach to compute fractal dimension of image. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24:115–120, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu S: An improved differential box-counting approach to compute fractal dimension of gray-level image: In: Yu F, Yue G, Chen Z, Zhang J Eds. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Science and Engineering; 2008 Dec 20–22; Shanghai, China. IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 303–306Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chikui T, Tokumori K, Yoshiura K, Oobu K, Nakamura S, Nakamura K: Sonographic texture characterization of salivary gland tumors by fractal analyses. Ultrasound Med Biol 31:1297–1304, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Erickson BJ, Ryan WJ, Gehring DG, Beebe C: Image display for clinicians on medical record workstations. J Digit Imaging 10:38–40, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Persons K, Palisson P, Manduca A, Erickson BJ, Savcenko V: An analytical look at the effects of compression on medical images. J Digit Imaging 10:60–66, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gegler A, Mahl C, Fontanella V: Reproducibility of and file format effect on digital subtraction radiography of simulated external root resorptions. Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiol 35:10–13, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Diagnosis and RadiologyEge UniversityIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations