Using fractal dimension to evaluate alveolar bone defects treated with various bone substitute materials
- 81 Downloads
This study analyzed how different implanted materials affected the healing of alveolar defects using fractal dimension (FD) computation taken from radiographs.
236 patients with bone defects in the upper/lower jaw were selected to this study and treated with: algae derived hydroxyapatite (AHA), bovine bone mineral (BBM), beta-tricalcium phosphate (TCP), synthetic hydroxyapatite (SHA), biological active glass (BAG), autogenous bone grafts (ABG), reference group (REF) — intact bone. 22 patients with bone defects where the bone substitute was not introduced made NON group. The results were monitored using intraoral x-ray imaging.
FD varied with the different biomaterials throughout the time of observation and reflected individual character of bone remodeling. Fractal analysis of intact and augmented bone during observation showed higher FD for the intact bone in comparison with the biomaterials site.
Fractal techniques can be a descriptor of bone substitutes. On the basis of the differences in the dynamics of alteration between different bone substitute materials we can distinguish two groups of them. Visible changes in the structure emerge earlier in places of implantation of BBM and TCP in comparison to the group of biomaterials constituting more stable patterns of radiotexture: AHA, BAG, SHA.
KeywordsBiocompatible Materials Bone Resorption Bone Substitutes Fractal analysis Image Processing Mandible Maxillary Sinus Subtraction Technique
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Tatum H. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Den Clin North Am 1986; 30: 207–229Google Scholar
- Wood RM, Moore DL. Grafting of the maxillary sinus with intraorally harvested autogenous bone prior to implant placement. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 1988; 3: 209–214Google Scholar
- Harris WH, White RE, McCarthy JC, Walker PS, Weinberg EH. Bony ingrowth fixation of acetabular component in canine hip joint arthroplastry. Clin Orthop Retal Res 1983; 176: 7–11Google Scholar
- Kozakiewicz M, Hanclik M, Arkuszewski P, et al. Bone augumentation with Bio-OSS. 18 month assessment utilizing radiological subtraction. Zeitschrift Zahnarztlich Implantologie 2001, suppl, S14Google Scholar
- Jensen T, Schou S, Svendsen PA, Forman JL, Gundersen HJ, Terheyden H, Holmstrup P: Volumetric changes of the graft after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with Bio-Oss and autogenous bone in different ratios: a radiographic study in minipigs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23(8): 902–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ruttimann UE, Ship JA. The use of fractal geometry to quantitate bone structure from radiographs. J Dent Res 1990; 69: 287 (Abstr 1431)Google Scholar
- Webber RL, Hazelrig JB, Patel JR, Van den Berg HR, Lemons. JE. Evaluation of site-specific differences in trabecular bone using fractal geometry. J Dent Res 1991; 70: 528 (Abstr 2095)Google Scholar
- Tsuji RK, Jorgetti V, Bento RF, Brito Neto RV. Use of Alpha-tricalcium Phosphate Bone Cement in the Surgical Treatment of Mastoid Cavity. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 12: 397–405Google Scholar
- Mamun S, Akhter M, Molla MR. Bone Grafts in Jaw Cysts-Hydroxyapatite & Allogenic Bone — A Comparative Study. BSMMU J 2009; 2: 34–39Google Scholar