Application of Fractal Analysis Method on Panoramic Radiographs and Effect of Different X-Ray Devices on Fractal Dimension Value

Year 2019, Volume: 9 Issue: 3, 492 - 498, 16.09.2019

İsmail Gümüşsoy

https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.587177

Cited By: 3

Abstract

İntroduction

The aim of this study was to investigate the
effect of  different X-ray devices and exposure
parameters on fractal analysis (FA)  of
panoramic radiographs (PR) for the same region of interest (ROI)  of the same jaw.

Material
and Methods

Fourty-five
panoramic images taken with different X-ray devices and exposure parameters of
fifteen dry sheep hemimandibles were used in this study. Fractal dimension
analysis of trabecular bone was performed on the hemimandible by using the
box-counting method. The results were statistically evaluated using the Paired
t-test.

Results

For 57
kVp, 5 mA and 63 kVp, 6 mA exposure
parameters and first X-ray device, the average FD value obtained from panoramic
images of fifteen dry sheep hemimandibles 
were 1,3551 and 1,3653. For the same exposure parameters and second
X-ray device, the average FD value obtained from panoramic images of fifteen
dry sheep hemimandibles  were 1,3632 and
1,3698. There was no statistically
significant difference between the FD values of PRs taken with two different
x-ray device (p = 0.552). There
was no statistically significant difference between the FD values ​​of 1st and
2nd scanning of first device and the FD values ​​of 1st and 2nd scanning of
second device (p = 0.164) (p = 0.587).

Conclusion

Although
the FD values obtained from the same ROI on the PRs taken with different X-ray
devices and tube voltage values of the same jaw were different, the small
changes in FD values did not make a statistically significant difference in the
results.

Keywords

fractal analysis, panoramic radiography, mandible

Panoramik Radyografilerde Fraktal Analiz Metodunun Uygulanması ve Değişik Röntgen Cihazlarının Fraktal Boyut Değerine Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç:

Bu çalışmanın amacı
aynı çenenin farklı röntgen cihazları ve çekim parametreleri ile elde edilen
panoramik radyografileri (PR) üzerinde aynı ilgi bölgesi için yapılan fraktal
analiz (FA) sonuçlarına cihazların ve teknik faktörlerin etkisini incelemektir.

Gereç ve Yöntemler:

Bu çalışmada, 15 adet
koyun hemimandibulasının iki farklı röntgen cihazı ve değişik ekspozür
parametreleri ile elde edilen 45 panoramik röntgen görüntüsü kullanıldı. ImageJ
(National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) 
programı kullanılarak kutu sayma yöntemi ile panoramik görüntüler
üzerinde mandibular trabeküler kemiğin fraktal boyut analizi yapıldı. Sonuçlar
Paired t-testi kullanılarak istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi.

Bulgular:

15 adet koyun
hemimandibulasının 1. Panoramik röntgen cihazında 57 kVp, 5 mA ve 63 kVp, 6 mA
parametreleri ile çekilen panoramik görüntülerinde elde edilen ortalama FB
değeri 1,3551 ve 1,3653 idi. Yine aynı parametreler ile 2. cihazdan elde edilen
ortalama FB ise 1,3632 ve 1,3698 idi. Her iki röntgen cihazı ile yapılan
çekimlere ait FB değerleri arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktu
(p=0,552). 1. Cihaz  ile yapılan 1. ve 2.
çekimlere ait FB değerleri arasında ve 2. cihaz ile yapılan 1. ve 2. çekimlere
ait FB değerleri arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p=0,164)
(p=0,587).

Sonuç:

Aynı çenenin farklı
röntgen cihazı ve tüp voltaj değerleri ile çekilen PR’ları üzerinde aynı ilgi
bölgesinden elde edilen FB değerleri farklı olmakla beraber, FB değerlerindeki
küçük değişimler sonuçlarda 
istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark oluşturmamıştır.

Keywords

fraktal analiz, panoramik radyografi, mandibula

References

• 1. Rosen C. Pathogenesis of osteoporosis. İçinde:Bailliere’s Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolizm, 2000: 180-193.
• 2. Fazzalari NL, Parkinson IH. Fractal properties of cancellous bone of the iliac crest in vertebral crush fracture. Bone, 1998, 23: 53-7.
• 3. Baig MA, Bacha D. Histology, Bone. İçinde:StatPearls, Treasure Island (FL), StatPearls Publishing LLC., 2019.
• 4. Alexandre C. Diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol, 1995, 7: 240-242.
• 5. Ergun S, Saracoglu A, Guneri P, Ozpinar B. Application of fractal analysis in hyperparathyroidism. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2009, 38: 281-8.
• 6. Yeşiltepe S, Yılmaz AB, Kurtuldu E, İ S. Fractal Analysis of Temporomandibular Joint Trabecular Bone Structure in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images. Meandros Med Dent J, 2018: 345-351.
• 7. Demirbas AK, Ergun S, Guneri P, Aktener BO, Boyacioglu H. Mandibular bone changes in sickle cell anemia: fractal analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2008, 106: e41-8.
• 8. Ruttimann UE, Webber RL, Hazelrig JB. Fractal dimension from radiographs of peridental alveolar bone. A possible diagnostic indicator of osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1992, 74: 98-110.
• 9. Cakur B, Sahin A, Dagistan S, Altun O, Caglayan F, Miloglu O, Harorli A. Dental panoramic radiography in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Int Med Res, 2008, 36: 792-9.
• 10. Kademoğlu O. Osteoporoz tanısında panoramik mandibular indeks ve panoramik radyografik dansitenin DEXA ile karşılaştırılması. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Oral Diagnoz ve Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı. doktora, Samsun: Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, 2004.
• 11. Tüzün F. Osteoporozun Tanımı, Sınıflaması ve Epidemiyolojisi.
• 12. Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Aartman IH, Wismeijer D. Accuracy of trabecular bone microstructural measurement at planned dental implant sites using cone-beam CT datasets. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2014, 25: 941-5.
• 13. Baker-LePain JC, Lane NE. Role of bone architecture and anatomy in osteoarthritis. Bone, 2012, 51: 197-203.
• 14. Bollen AM, Taguchi A, Hujoel PP, Hollender LG. Fractal dimension on dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2001, 30: 270-5.
• 15. Pothuaud L, Lespessailles E, Harba R, Jennane R, Royant V, Eynard E, Benhamou CL. Fractal analysis of trabecular bone texture on radiographs: discriminant value in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int, 1998, 8: 618-25.
• 16. Saeed SS, Ibraheem UM, Alnema MM. Quantitative Analysis by Pixel Intensity and Fractal Dimensions for Imaging Diagnosis of Periapical Lesions. International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering, 2014, 3: 138-144.
• 17. 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: 20150389.
• 18. 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: 569-76.
• 19. Southard TE, Southard KA, Lee A. Alveolar process fractal dimension and postcranial bone density. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2001, 91: 486-91.
• 20. Law AN, Bollen AM, Chen SK. Detecting osteoporosis using dental radiographs: a comparison of four methods. J Am Dent Assoc, 1996, 127: 1734-42.
• 21. White SC, Cohen JM, Mourshed FA. Digital analysis of trabecular pattern in jaws of patients with sickle cell anemia. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2000, 29: 119-24.
• 22. White SC. Oral radiographic predictors of osteoporosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2002, 31: 84-92.
• 23. 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: 263-7.
• 24. Savic Pavicin I, Dumancic J, Jukic T, Badel T, Badanjak A. Digital orthopantomograms in osteoporosis detection: mandibular density and mandibular radiographic indices as skeletal BMD predictors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2014, 43: 20130366.
• 25. Suer BT, Yaman Z, Buyuksarac B. Correlation of Fractal Dimension Values with Implant Insertion Torque and Resonance Frequency Values at Implant Recipient Sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2016, 31: 55-62.
• 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, 1999, 88: 628-35.
• 27. Devlin H, Karayianni K, Mitsea A, Jacobs R, Lindh C, van der Stelt P, Marjanovic E, Adams J, Pavitt S, Horner K. Diagnosing osteoporosis by using dental panoramic radiographs: the OSTEODENT project. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2007, 104: 821-8.
• 28. Zeytinoglu M, Ilhan B, Dundar N, Boyacioglu H. Fractal analysis for the assessment of trabecular peri-implant alveolar bone using panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Investig, 2015, 19: 519-24.
• 29. Updike SX, Nowzari H. Fractal analysis of dental radiographs to detect periodontitis-induced trabecular changes. J Periodontal Res, 2008, 43: 658-64.
• 30. Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2006, 35: 393-7.
• 31. Yasar F, Apaydin B, Yilmaz HH. The effects of image compression on quantitative measurements of digital panoramic radiographs. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2012, 17: e1074-81.