Journals / European Oral Research / 2023 / Cilt: 57 Sayı: 2

The effects of technical factors on the fractal dimension in different dental radiographic images

Pages
68–74
Publication Date
2023-05-31
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)

However, fractal analysis may not be an ideal method for evaluating three-dimensional images, such as those obtained with CBCT.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the impact of exposure parameters and image formats on fractal dimension (FD) values in periapical, panoramic, and CBCT images.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A periapical radiograph was taken with 60 kVp/7 mA and exported in DICOM, JPEG, TIFF, and PNG formats.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, fractal analysis may not be an ideal method for evaluating three-dimensional images, such as those obtained with CBCT.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Fractal analysis · Exposure parameters · Image format

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the impact of exposure parameters and image formats on fractal dimension (FD) values in periapical, panoramic, and CBCT images. Materials and Methods Seven dry male mandibles were selected, and a Gutta-Percha was used to identify identical regions of interest. A periapical radiograph was taken with 60 kVp/7 mA and exported in DICOM, JPEG, TIFF, and PNG formats. Nine periapical radiographs (60, 65, 70 kVp; 4, 5, 6 mA) were taken from seven dry human mandibles. Additionally, 12 panoramic radiographs (60, 70, 81, 90 kVp; 5, 8, 13 mA) and 10 CBCT images (with different scanning options and FOVs) were taken from each mandible. FDs were measured from a standard area. Results The intra-class correlation coefficient demonstrated a high degree of agreement between observers. No significant difference was found between TIFF and PNG formats (p > 0.05). The highest FD mean was found in TIFF format, while the lowest FD mean was found in JPEG format (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between kVp and mA settings in periapical images. In panoramic images, a significant difference was found at 90 kVp (p = 0.001) and 13 mA (p < 0.001), with lower FD values observed at these settings. There was no significant difference between FOV and resolution in CBCT images (p > 0.05). Conclusion The format of the image can influence FD. For periapical and panoramic radiographs, kVp and mA settings do not have a significant impact on FD. However, fractal analysis may not be an ideal method for evaluating three-dimensional images, such as those obtained with CBCT.

🔖

Cite This Article

AMUK, M., SARIBAL, G. Ş., ERSU, N., YILMAZ, S. (2023). The effects of technical factors on the fractal dimension in different dental radiographic images. European Oral Research, Cilt: 57 Sayı: 2, 68–74. https://ajindex.com/articles/945127

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Güngör E, Yildirim D, Çevik R. Evaluation of osteoporosis in jaw bones using cone beam CT and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Journal of oral science. 2016
  2. 58(2):185-94. Reference2: Tolga Suer B, Yaman Z, Buyuksarac B. Correlation of Fractal Dimension Values with Implant Insertion Torque and Resonance Frequency Values at Implant Recipient Sites. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2016
  3. 31(1). Reference3:Geraets W, Van Der Stelt P. Fractal properties of bone. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2000
  4. 29(3):144-53. Reference4: Kato CN, Barra SG, Tavares NP, Amaral TM, Brasileiro CB, Mesquita RA, et al. Use of fractal analysis in dental images: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2020
  5. 49(2):20180457. Reference5: White SC, Rudolph DJ. Alterations of the trabecular pattern of the jaws in patients with osteoporosis. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 1999
  6. 88(5):628-35. Reference6: Bechara B, McMahan CA, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Geha H, Teixeira FB. Contrast-to-noise ratio difference in small field of view cone beam computed tomography machines. Journal of oral science. 2012
  7. 54(3):227-32. Reference7: 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. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2013
  8. 42(10):20130206. Reference8: Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2006
  9. 35(6):393-7. Reference9: Wilding R, Slabbert J, Kathree H, Owen C, Crombie K, Delport P. The use of fractal analysis to reveal remodelling in human alveolar bone following the placement of dental implants. Archives of Oral Biology. 1995
  10. 40(1):61-72. Reference10: Shrout MK, Roberson B, Potter BJ, Mailhot JM, Hildebolt CF. A comparison of 2 patient populations using fractal analysis. Journal of periodontology. 1998
  11. 69(1):9-13. Reference11: Shrout M, Hildebolt C, Potter B. The effect of varying the region of interest on calculations of fractal index. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 1997
  12. 26(5):295-8. Reference12: Baksi BG, Fidler A. Image resolution and exposure time of digital radiographs affects fractal dimension of periapical bone. Clinical oral investigations. 2012
  13. 16(5):1507-10. Reference13: Pauwels R, Faruangsaeng T, Charoenkarn T, Ngonphloy N, Panmekiate S. Effect of exposure parameters and voxel size on bone