Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 6

Radiomorphometric Index evaluation of bone changes on dental panoramic radiographs of patients with type 2 diabetes

Kübra Karaçam(AFYONKARAHISAR HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5981-5253
Rahime Zeynep Erdem(AFYONKARAHISAR HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9217-9631
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Early detection of these changes may support clinical decisions such as implant planning and allow radiographic monitoring of the systemic effects of diabetes on bone.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: The aim of this study was to compare radiomorphometric indices and fractal dimension (FD) values on dental panoramic radiographs (DPR) among systemically healthy controls, patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and patients with poorly controlled T2DM.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A total of 210 individuals were allocated equally into three groups (n=70 each): healthy controls, well-controlled T2DM (HbA1c ≤7%), and poorly controlled T2DM (HbA1c >7%).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Early detection of these changes may support clinical decisions such as implant planning and allow radiographic monitoring of the systemic effects of diabetes on bone.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Diabetes mellitus · panoramic radiography · Radiomorphometric Indexes

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare radiomorphometric indices and fractal dimension (FD) values on dental panoramic radiographs (DPR) among systemically healthy controls, patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and patients with poorly controlled T2DM. Methods: A total of 210 individuals were allocated equally into three groups (n=70 each): healthy controls, well-controlled T2DM (HbA1c ≤7%), and poorly controlled T2DM (HbA1c >7%). Radiomorphometric analysis on the DPRs included the mandibular cortex width (MCW), Panoramic Mandibular Index (PMI), Gonial Index (GI), and Mandibular Cortex Index (MCI), together with FD analysis based on the box-counting method applied to four regions of interest. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test, the independent samples t-test, the Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test, and Spearman correlation analysis, as appropriate. Results: The mean FD, MCW, GI, and PMI values in the poorly controlled group were significantly lower than those of the control group, and the mean FD and MCW values in the well-controlled group were significantly lower than those of the control group (p<0.05 for all). The mean FD and GI values were significantly lower in the poorly controlled group than in the well-controlled group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Higher HbA1c levels were associated with changes in the mandibular radiomorphometric indices and FD values of patients with T2DM, although the inverse correlation between HbA1c and FD was weak and observed only in the well-controlled group. Early detection of these changes may support clinical decisions such as implant planning and allow radiographic monitoring of the systemic effects of diabetes on bone.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karaçam, K., Erdem, R. Z., Yılmaz, S. G. (2026). Radiomorphometric Index evaluation of bone changes on dental panoramic radiographs of patients with type 2 diabetes. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 6. https://ajindex.com/articles/1668031

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. American Diabetes A. 2. classification and diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(Suppl 1):S13-S22. doi:10.2337/dc16-S005
  2. Galicia-Garcia U, Benito-Vicente A, Jebari S, et al. Pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(17):6275. doi:10.3390/ijms21176275
  3. Samelson EJ, Demissie S, Cupples LA, et al. Diabetes and deficits in cortical bone density, microarchitecture, and bone size: Framingham HR-pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(1):54-62. doi:10.1002/jbmr.3240
  4. Rubin MR, Patsch JM. Assessment of bone turnover and bone quality in type 2 diabetic bone disease: current concepts and future directions. Bone Res. 2016;4:16001. doi:10.1038/boneres.2016.1
  5. Tuominen JT, Impivaara O, Puukka P, Ronnemaa T. Bone mineral density in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999; 22(7):1196-1200. doi:10.2337/diacare.22.7.1196
  6. Leidig-Bruckner G, Ziegler R. Diabetes mellitus a risk for osteoporosis? Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2001;109(Suppl 2):S493-S514. doi:10.1055/s-2001-18605
  7. Nilsson AG, Sundh D, Johansson L, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with better bone microarchitecture but lower bone material strength and poorer physical function in elderly women: a population-based study. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(5):1062-1071. doi:10.1002/jbmr.3057
  8. Kursun-Cakmak ES, Bayrak S. Comparison of fractal dimension analysis and panoramic-based radiomorphometric indices in the assessment of mandibular bone changes in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;126(2):184-191. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2018.04.010
  9. Nemtoi A, Ladunca O, Dragan E, Budacu C, Mihai C, Haba D. Quantitative and qualitative bone assessment of the posterior mandible in patients with diabetes mellitus: a cone beam computed tomography study. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi. 2013;117(4):1002-1008.
  10. Bayrak S, Goller Bulut D, Orhan K, et al. Evaluation of osseous changes in dental panoramic radiography of thalassemia patients using Mandibular Indexes and fractal size analysis. Oral Radiol. 2020;36(1):18-24. doi:10.1007/s11282-019-00372-7
  11. Gunacar DN, Yemenoglu H, Ustaoglu G, Arioz O. Effects of hyperlipidemia on trabecular and cortical structures of the mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2022;51(2):20210214. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20210214
  12. American Diabetes A. 6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care. Jan 2021;44(Suppl 1):S73-S84. doi:10.2337/dc21-S006
  13. Benson BW, Prihoda TJ, Glass BJ. Variations in adult cortical bone mass as measured by a Panoramic Mandibular Index. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991;71(3):349-56. doi:10.1016/0030-4220(91)90314-3
  14. Taguchi A, Sugino N, Miki M, et al. Detecting young Japanese adults with undetected low skeletal bone density using panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(3):154-159. doi:10.1259/dmfr/30045588
  15. Dutra V, Yang J, Devlin H, Susin C. Radiomorphometric indices and their relation to gender, age, and dental status. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;99(4):479-484. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.09.013
  16. Klemetti E, Kolmakov S, Kroger H. Pantomography in assessment of the osteoporosis risk group. Scand J Dent Res. 1994;102(1):68-72. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.1994.tb01156.x
  17. Dagistan S, Bilge OM. Comparison of Antegonial Index, Mental Index, Panoramic Mandibular Index and Mandibular Cortical Index values in the panoramic radiographs of normal males and male patients with osteoporosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(5):290-294. doi:10.1259/dmfr/46589325
  18. A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 4.6.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2026. https://www.R-project.org/
  19. Astuti ER, Arifin AZ, Indraswari R, Putra RH, Ramadhani NF, Pramatika B. Computer-Aided System of the Mandibular Cortical Bone Porosity Assessment on Digital Panoramic Radiographs. Eur J Dent. 2023;17(2):464-471. doi:10.1055/s-0042-1749158
  20. Taguchi A, Tanaka R, Kakimoto N, et al. Clinical guidelines for the application of panoramic radiographs in screening for osteoporosis. Oral Radiol. 2021;37(2):189-208. doi:10.1007/s11282-021-00518-6
  21. Abdinian M, Milaei M, Soltani P. Digital panoramic radiography and CBCT as auxiliary tools for detection of low bone mineral density in post-menopausal women: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Imaging. 2023;23(1):78. doi:10.1186/s12880-023-01046-x
  22. Rupel K, Dal Broi C, Ottaviani G, et al. Changes in mandibular radiomorphometric indices in osteoporosis patients treated with denosumab: a retrospective case-control study. BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):89. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-03870-1
  23. Poiana IR, Dobre R, Pituru SM, Bucur A. The value of mandibular indices on cone beam computed tomography in secondary causes of low bone mass. J Clin Med. 2024;13:16. doi:10.3390/jcm13164854
  24. Teterina A, Niratisairak S, Morseth B, Bolstad N. Diagnostic efficacy of radiomorphometric indices for predicting osteoporosis in a Norwegian population in the Tromso study: Tromso7. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2023;135(3):444-455. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2022.10.039
  25. Melton LJ 3rd, Leibson CL, Achenbach SJ, Therneau TM, Khosla S. Fracture risk in type 2 diabetes: update of a population-based study. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23(8):1334-1342. doi:10.1359/jbmr.080323
  26. Kao WH, Kammerer CM, Schneider JL, Bauer RL, Mitchell BD. Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased bone mineral density in Mexican-American women. Arch Med Res. 2003;34(5):399-406. doi:10.1016/j.arcmed.2002.07.001
  27. Bauer DC, Browner WS, Cauley JA, et al. Factors associated with appendicular bone mass in older women. The study of osteoporotic fractures research group. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(9):657-665. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-9-199305010-00001
  28. de L, II, van der Klift M, de Laet CE, van Daele PL, Hofman A, Pols HA. Bone mineral density and fracture risk in type-2 diabetes mellitus: the Rotterdam study. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(12):1713-1720. doi:10.1007/s00198-005-1909-1
  29. Wolfel EM, Fiedler IAK, Dragoun Kolibova S, et al. Human tibial cortical bone with high porosity in type 2 diabetes mellitus is accompanied by distinctive bone material properties. Bone. 2022;165:116546. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2022.116546
  30. Rodic T, Wolfel EM, Milovanovic P, et al. Bone quality analysis of jaw bones in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus-post mortem anatomical and microstructural evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 25(7):4377-4400. doi:10.1007/s00784-020-03751-1
  31. Calciolari E, Donos N, Park JC, Petrie A, Mardas N. Panoramic measures for oral bone mass in detecting osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2015;94(3 Suppl):17S-27S. doi:10.1177/0022034514554949
  32. Limeira FIR, Reboucas PRM, Diniz DN, Melo DP, Bento PM. Decrease in mandibular cortical in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus combined with poor glycemic control. Braz Dent J. 2017;28(5):552-558. doi:10.1590/0103-6440201701523
  33. Taguchi A, Suei Y, Ohtsuka M, Otani K, Tanimoto K, Ohtaki M. Usefulness of panoramic radiography in the diagnosis of postmenopausal osteoporosis in women. Width and morphology of inferior cortex of the mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1996;25(5):263-267. doi:10.1259/dmfr.25.5.9161180
  34. Kavitha MS, Park SY, Heo MS, Chien SI. Distributional variations in the quantitative cortical and trabecular bone radiographic measurements of mandible, between male and female populations of Korea, and its utilization. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167992. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167992
  35. Kayipmaz S, Akçay S, Sezgin Ö. Osteoporotic mandibular changes caused by type 2 diabetes mellitus: a comparative study by cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Oral Radiology. 2017;33(2):108-116. doi:10.1007/s11282-016-0252-X
  36. Rubin MR. Bone cells and bone turnover in diabetes mellitus. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2015;13(3):186-191. doi:10.1007/s11914-015-0265-0
  37. Hansen D, Brandi L, Rasmussen K. Treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in haemodialysis patients: a randomised clinical trial comparing paricalcitol and alfacalcidol. BMC Nephrol. 2009;10:28. doi:10.1186/1471-2369-10-28
  38. Akyol R, Sirin Saribal G, Amuk M. Evaluation of mandibular bone changes in multiple myeloma patients on dental panoramic radiographs. Oral Radiol. 2022;38(4):575-585. doi:10.1007/s11282-022-00590-6
  39. Dagistan S, Miloglu O, Caglayan F. Changes in jawbones of male patients with chronic renal failure on digital panoramic radiographs. Eur J Dent. 2016;10(1):64-68. doi:10.4103/1305-7456.175699
  40. Kato CN, Barra SG, Tavares NP, et al. Use of fractal analysis in dental images: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020;49(2): 20180457. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20180457
  41. Tercanlı Alkış H, Yağmur B, Parlak M, Karayılmaz H. Mandibular bone changes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus in different metabolic control states. J Dent Indones. 2022;29(1):52-60.
  42. Rai S, Misra D, Misra A. Cone-beam computed tomography assessment of bone using grayscale values in patients with diabetes mellitus. A case-control observational study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2020;24(6):560-566. doi:10.4103/jisp.jisp_719_18
  43. Dedeoglu N, Eser G, Celik Ozen D, Altun O. Five-year change of panoramic radiomorphometric indices and fractal dimension values in type 2 diabetes patients. Oral Radiol. 2024;40(1):49-57. doi:10.1007/s11282-023-00707-5