Advertisement

Evaluation of the mandibular trabecular bone in patients with bruxism using fractal analysis

  • Melike Gulec
  • Melek Tassoker
  • Sevgi Ozcan
  • Kaan OrhanEmail author
Original Article
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

The aims of this study were (1) to investigate the effect of bruxism on the fractal dimension (FD) of the mandibular trabecular bone through digital panoramic radiographs, and (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of fractal analysis as a diagnostic test for bruxism.

Methods

One hundred and six bruxer and 106 non-bruxer patients were included in the study. Three bilateral regions of interest (ROI) were selected: ROI-1, the mandibular condyle; ROI-2, the mandibular angle; ROI-3, the-area between the apical regions of the mandibular second premolar and the first molar teeth. FD values for the bruxer and non-bruxer groups were compared for each ROI.

Results

Only the FD measurements for the right mandibular condyle (ROI-1) showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.041) between the bruxer and non-bruxer individuals. FD values measured in the bruxers (1.40 ± 0.09) were lower than in the non-bruxers (1.42 ± 0.08).

Conclusion

Fractal analysis may be a useful method for discerning trabecular differences in the condylar areas of bruxer individuals. In future studies, the unilateral mastication habits, the characteristics of dental wear, and the occlusal bite forces of individuals should be documented.

Keywords

Bruxism Fractal analysis Mandible Trabecular bone 

Notes

Funding

No funding to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Feder J. Fractals. New York: Plenum Press; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geraets WGM, van der Stelt PF. Fractal properties of bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000;29(3):144–53.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lopes R, Betrouni N. Fractal and multifractal analysis: a review. Med Image Anal. 2009;13(4):634–49.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fazzalari NL, Parkinson IH. Fractal properties of subchondral cancellous bone in severe osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Miner Res. 1997;12(4):632–40.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ergun S, Saracoglu A, Guneri P, Ozpinar B. Application of fractal analysis in hyperparathyroidism. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38(5):281–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heo M-S, Park K-S, Lee S-S, Choi S-C, Koak J-Y, Heo S-J, 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Updike SX, Nowzari H. Fractal analysis of dental radiographs to detect periodontitis-induced trabecular changes. J Periodont Res. 2008;43(6):658–64.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sansare K, Singh D, Karjodkar F. Changes in the fractal dimension on pre- and post-implant panoramic radiographs. Oral Radiol. 2011;28(1):15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arsan B, Kose TE, Cene E, Ozcan I. Assessment of the trabecular structure of mandibular condyles in patients with temporomandibular disorders using fractal analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;123(3):382–91.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sogur E, Baksi BG. Imaging systems used for diagnosis of periodontal pathology. Part 2: alternative imaging systems and image processing methods. Ege Dent J. 2014;35(1):10–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Firestone AR. Orofacial pain: guidelines for assessment, diagnosis, and management. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19(1):103–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seligman DA, Pullinger AG, Solberg WK. The prevalence of dental attrition and its association with factors of age, gender, occlusion, and TMJ symptomatology. J Dent Res. 1988;67(10):1323–33.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shetty S, Pitti V, Satish Babu CL, Surendra Kumar GP, Deepthi BC. Bruxism: a literature review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2010;10(3):141–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sener S, Karabekiroglu S, Unlu N. Awareness of bruxism in young adult individuals and evaluation of various related factors. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2014;17(4):361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peña-Durán C, Tobar-Reyes J, Frugone-Zambra R. Sleep and awake bruxism in adults and its relationship with temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review from 2003 to 2014 AU—Jiménez-Silva Antonio. Acta Odontol Scand. 2017;75(1):36–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arnett G, Milam S, Gottesman L. Progressive mandibular retrusion idiopathic condylar resorption. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110(1):8–15.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Calderon Pdos S, Kogawa EM, Lauris JR, Conti PC. The influence of gender and bruxism on the human maximum bite force. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14(6):448–53.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manfredini D, Cantini E, Romagnoli M, Bosco M. Prevalence of bruxism in patients with different research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD) diagnoses. Cranio. 2003;21(4):279–85.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Molina OF, dos Santos J, Nelson SJ, Nowlin T. A clinical study of specific signs and symptoms of CMD in bruxers classified by the degree of severity. Cranio. 1999;17(4):268–79.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manfredini D, Landi N, Romagnoli M, Cantini E, Bosco M. Etiopathogenesis of parafunctional habits of the stomatognathic system. Minerva Stomatol. 2003;52(7–8):339–45, 345–9.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Glaros A, Kato T, Koyano K, Lavigne G, et al. Bruxism defined and graded: an international consensus. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40(1):2–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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. 2005;100(4):467–72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Samarabandu J, Acharya R, Hausmann E, Allen K. Analysis of bone X-rays using morphological fractals. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1993;12(3):466–70.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(6):393–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ruttimann UE, Webber RL, Hazelrig JB. Fractal dimension from radiographs of periodontal alveolar bone. A possible diagnostic indicator of osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992;74(1):98–110.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shrout MK, Potter BJ, Hildebolt CF. The effect of image variations on fractal dimension calculations. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997;84(1):96–100.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shrout MK, Hildebolt CF, Potter BJ. The effect of varying the region of interest on calculations of fractal index. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1997;26(5):295–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Apolinário AC, Sindeaux R, de Souza Figueiredo PT, Guimarães AT, Acevedo AC, Castro LC, et al. Dental panoramic indices and fractal dimension measurements in osteogenesis imperfecta children under pamidronate treatment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016;45(4):20150400.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shrout MK, Farley BA, Patt SM, Potter BJ, Hildebolt CF, Pilgram TK, et al. The effect of region of interest variations on morphologic operations data and gray-level values extracted from digitized dental radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;88(5):636–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sener E, Baksi BG. Evaluation of fractal dimension and mandibular cortical index in healthy and osteoporosis patients. Ege Dent J. 2016;37(3):159–67.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yasar F, Akgunlu F. Fractal dimension and lacunarity analysis of dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34(5):261–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wilding R, Slabbert J, Kathree H, Owen C, Crombie K, Delport P. The use of fractal analysis to reveal remodeling in human alveolar bone following the placement of dental implants. Arch Oral Biol. 1995;40(1):61–72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kayipmaz S, Akcay S, Sezgin OS, Candirli C. Trabecular structural changes in the mandibular condyle caused by degenerative osteoarthritis: a comparative study by cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Oral Radiol. 2018;35:51–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Alman A, Johnson L, Calverley D, Grunwald G, Lezotte D, Hokanson J. Diagnostic capabilities of fractal dimension and mandibular cortical width to identify men and women with decreased bone mineral density. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(5):1631–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Podsiadlo P, Dahl L, Englund M, Lohmander L, Stachowiak G. Differences in trabecular bone texture between knees with and without radiographic osteoarthritis detected by fractal methods. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2008;16(3):323–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gumussoy I, Miloglu O, Cankaya E, Bayrakdar IS. Fractal properties of the trabecular pattern of the mandible in chronic renal failure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016;45(5):20150389.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Amer ME, Heo M-S, 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bryant SR. The effects of age, jaw site, and bone condition on oral implant outcomes. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11(5):470–90.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yasar F. Comparison of osteoporotic bone trabecular findings with radiographic, digital analysis and bone mineral density methods. Selçuk University, Doctoral Thesis; 2002.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Emodi Perlman A, Lobbezoo F, Zar A, Friedman Rubin P, van Selms MK, Winocur E. Self-reported bruxism and associated factors in Israeli adolescents. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43(6):443–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Huhtela OS, Napankangas R, Joensuu T, Raustia A, Kunttu K, Sipila K. Self-reported bruxism and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders in Finnish University Students. J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2016;30(4):311–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kavakli Y. Evaluation of the efficacy of two different devices in the treatment of patients with sleep bruxism diagnosed by polysomnography. Hacettepe University, Doctoral Thesis; 2006.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology-E-Book: principles and interpretation. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of DentistryNecmettin Erbakan UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of DentistryAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations