The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension

Seyide Tuğçe Gökdeniz; Muhammet Hilmi Kotan

doi:10.52037/eads.2026.0015

The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension

Abstract

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of exposure parameters on fractal dimension values using CBCT images acquired under different exposure conditions. Methods: The VistaVox S device was used to acquire the images with exposure parameters of 5 mA at 79 kVp, 7 mA at 94 kVp, and 9 mA at 94 kVp. Measurements were taken at a total of 90 ROIs, with 30 ROIs identified in each image set. ImageJ version 1.53t was used for fractal dimension analyses. Results: The agreement between measurements was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The agreement for the 5 mA/79 kVp and 7 mA/94 kVp parameters was very good (ICC = 0.92–0.93), while the agreement for the 9 mA/94 kVp parameter was good (ICC = 0.80). The fractal dimension decreases consistently as current and voltage increase, and this decrease is statistically significant. In the comparison of pure mA values (7 mA/94 kVp vs. 9 mA/94 kVp), the fractal dimension also differs significantly (p = .019 and p = .003). Conclusion: In fractal dimension measurements, the intra-observer agreement is high, and the fractal dimension decreases significantly with increasing current and voltage. Keywords: Fractal analysis, Fractal Dimension, CBCT, Exposure parameters, Tube voltage

Keywords

References

"1. Courpron P, Meunier P, Vignon G. [Dynamics of bone remod-eling explained by Harold Frost. Theory of the B. M.U. (basic multicellular unit)]. Nouv Presse Med. 1975;4(6):421–424.
2. Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal anal-ysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2006;35(6):393–397. doi:10.1259/dmfr/30969642.
3. Doyle MD, Rabin H, Suri JS. Fractal analysis as a means for the quantification of intramandibular trabecular bone loss from dental radiographs. In: Proc. SPIE 1380, Biostereometric Tech-nology and Applications. vol. 1380; 1991. doi:10.1117/12.25125.
4. Ruttimann UE, Webber RL, Hazelrig JB. Fractal dimension from radiographs of peridental alveolar bone. A possible diag-nostic indicator of osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992;74(1):98–110. doi:10.1016/0030-4220(92)90222-c.
5. Chen J, Zheng B, Chang YH, Shaw CC, Towers JD, Gur D. Fractal analysis of trabecular patterns in projection radio-graphs. An assessment. Invest Radiol. 1994;29(6):624–629. doi:10.1097/00004424-199406000-00005.
6. Amuk M, Saribal GS, Ersu N, Yilmaz S. The effects of technical factors on the fractal dimension in different den-tal radiographic images. Eur Oral Res. 2023;57(2):68–74. doi:10.26650/eor.2023984422.
7. Nursari EM, Kiswanjaya B, Wijanarko AP, Priaminiarti M, Bachtiar-Iskandar HH, Yoshihara A. The relationship between radiomorphometric indices and fractal dimension analysis: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):23440. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-74485-3.
8. Pekince A, Azlağ Pekince K, Yasa Y. How does the direction of re-gion of interest selection affect the fractal dimension? Oral Ra-diology. 2025;41(2):180–189. doi:10.1007/s11282-024-00786-y.

9. Vieira CSC, de Oliveira GJPL, de Rezende Barbosa GL. Compari-son of fractal analysis in panoramic radiography and panoramic reconstructions obtained by cone beam computed tomography. Oral Radiology. 2026;42(2):313–321. doi:10.1007/s11282-025-00865-8.
10. Baydar O, Onem E, Mert A, Baksi BG. Evaluation of trabecular bone microstructure and cortical morphology using cone-beam and micro-CT images: impact of tube voltage setting. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):664. doi:10.1186/s12903-025-05855-0.
11. Barra SG, de Oliveira CdNA, Gomes IP, Amaral TMP, Brasileiro CB, Mesquita RA. Detecting patients with low bone mineral density during cone-beam computed tomography. J Bone Biol Osteoporosis. 2019;5(1):159–162.
12. Nursari EM, Kiswanjaya B, Priaminiarti M, Bachtiar-Iskandar HH. Osteoporosis detection using radiomorphometric ex-amination and fractal dimensions through cone-beam com-puted tomography. Maj Kedokt Gigi Indones. 2022;8(2):84–97. doi:10.22146/majkedgiind.74535.
13. Pearce AI, Richards R, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce S. An-imal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: A review. European cells & materials. 2007;13:1–10. doi:10.22203/eCM.v013a01.
14. Sartoretto SC, Uzeda MJ, Miguel FB, Nascimento JR, Ascoli F, Calasans-Maia MD. SHEEP AS AN EXPERIMENTAL MODEL FOR BIOMATERIAL IMPLANT EVALUATION. Acta Ortop Bras. 2016;24(5):262–266. doi:10.1590/1413785220162405161949.
15. Yavuz E, Yardimci S. Comparison of periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and CBCT in the evaluation of tra-becular bone structure using fractal analysis. Oral Radiology. 2024;40(3):394–400. doi:10.1007/s11282-024-00743-9.
16. Hayek E, Aoun G, Bassit R, Nasseh I. Correlating Radio-graphic Fractal Analysis at Implant Recipient Sites with Pri-mary Implant Stability: An In Vivo Preliminary Study. Cureus. 2020;12(1):e6539. doi:10.7759/cureus.6539.
17. White SC, Rudolph DJ. Alterations of the trabecular pat"pat-" "tern of the jaws in patients with osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;88(5):628–635. doi:10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70097-1.
18. SHAPIRO SS, WILK MB. An analysis of variance test for nor-mality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3-4):591–611. doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591.
19. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Report-ing Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Re-search. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2016;15(2):155–163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
20. Tomczak M, Tomczak-Łukaszewska E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recom-mended measures of effect size. TRENDS in Sport Sciences. 2014;21(1):19–25.
21. Akçay Köprücü S, Uzun T. Magnetic resonance imaging and fractal analysis findings in temporo-mandibular joints with disk perforation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2023;135(6):914–927. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2023.01.001.
22. Barngkgei I, Halboub E, Almashraqi A. Effect of bisphospho-nate treatment on the jawbone: an exploratory study using periapical and panoramic radiographic evaluation. Oral Radiol. 2019;35(2):159–170. doi:10.1007/s11282-018-0358-4.
23. Colaco LSL, Chhaparwal Y, Patil V, Smriti K. Decoding dental images: a comprehensive review of fractal analysis. BDJ Open. 2025;11(1):74. doi:10.1038/s41405-025-00365-1.
24. Kato CN, Barra SG, Tavares NP, Amaral TM, Brasileiro CB, Mesquita RA, et al. Use of fractal analysis in den-tal images: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020;49(2):20180457. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20180457.
25. Kendirci MY, Akkitap MP, Erturk AF, Akgul FB, Ozcan I. Di-agnostic Performance of Fractal Dimension Analysis of the Mandibular Condyle and Gonial Angle in Individuals With Bruxism. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2026:102916. doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2026.102916.
26. Barngkgei I, Halboub E, Almashraqi A. Effect of bisphospho-nate treatment on the jawbone: an exploratory study using periapical and panoramic radiographic evaluation. Oral Radiol. 2019;35(2):159–170. doi:10.1007/s11282-018-0358-4.
27. Carvalho BF, de Castro JGK, de Melo NS, de Souza Figueiredo PT, Moreira-Mesquita CR, de Paula AP, et al. Fractal dimension analysis on CBCT scans for detecting low bone mineral den-sity in postmenopausal women. Imaging science in dentistry. 2022;52(1):53–60. doi:10.5624/isd.20210172.
28. Sharma M, Sharma D, RahiVerma D, Sharma M, Bish-noi R. Comparing cone-beam computed tomography with panoramic radiography for the evaluation of bone quality. J Pharm Negat Results. 2022;13(10):784–794. doi:10.47750/pnr.2022.13.S10.085.
29. Khubrani YH, Geha H, Katkar RA, Maghsoodi-Zahedi T, Moore W, Abdelkarim AZ. Efficacy of the CALM® Algorithm in Re-ducing Motion-Induced Artifacts in CBCT Imaging: A Frac-tal Dimension Analysis of Trabecular Bone. Dentistry Journal. 2024;12(8):262. doi:10.3390/dj12080262.
30. Pekince A, Azlağ Pekince K, Yasa Y. How does the direction of region of interest selection affect the fractal dimension? Oral Radiol. 2025;41(2):180–189. doi:10.1007/s11282-024-00786-y.
31. Pauwels R, Faruangsaeng T, Charoenkarn T, Ngonphloy N, Pan-mekiate S. Effect of exposure parameters and voxel size on bone structure analysis in CBCT. Dento maxillo facial radiology. 2015;44(8):20150078. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20150078.
32. Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(6):393–397. doi:10.1259/dmfr/30969642.
33. Freitas DQ, Fontenele RC, Nascimento EHL, Vasconcelos TV, Noujeim M. Influence of acquisition parameters on the magni-tude of cone beam computed tomography artifacts. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47(8):20180151. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20180151.
34. Surenthar M, Srinivasan SV, Parimala D, Ramanathan V. De-generative Temporomandibular Disorders: An Assessment of Bone Trabecular Structure Using Fractal Analysis in Digital Panoramic Radiographs. Cureus. 2024;16(4):e57449. doi:10.7759/cureus.57449.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Seyide Tuğçe Gökdeniz ^*
0000-0001-9756-8265
Türkiye

Muhammet Hilmi Kotan
0009-0000-5204-3131
Türkiye

Publication Date

August 30, 2026

Submission Date

June 28, 2026

Acceptance Date

August 11, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 53 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2026.0015

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA46KC39SU

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Gökdeniz, S. T., & Kotan, M. H. (2026). The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension. European Annals of Dental Sciences, 53(2), 97-103. https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2026.0015

AMA

1.Gökdeniz ST, Kotan MH. The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension. EADS. 2026;53(2):97-103. doi:10.52037/eads.2026.0015

Chicago

Gökdeniz, Seyide Tuğçe, and Muhammet Hilmi Kotan. 2026. “The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension”. European Annals of Dental Sciences 53 (2): 97-103. https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2026.0015.

EndNote

Gökdeniz ST, Kotan MH (August 1, 2026) The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension. European Annals of Dental Sciences 53 2 97–103.

IEEE

[1]S. T. Gökdeniz and M. H. Kotan, “The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension”, EADS, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 97–103, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.52037/eads.2026.0015.

ISNAD

Gökdeniz, Seyide Tuğçe - Kotan, Muhammet Hilmi. “The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension”. European Annals of Dental Sciences 53/2 (August 1, 2026): 97-103. https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2026.0015.

JAMA

1.Gökdeniz ST, Kotan MH. The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension. EADS. 2026;53:97–103.

MLA

Gökdeniz, Seyide Tuğçe, and Muhammet Hilmi Kotan. “The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension”. European Annals of Dental Sciences, vol. 53, no. 2, Aug. 2026, pp. 97-103, doi:10.52037/eads.2026.0015.

Vancouver

1.Seyide Tuğçe Gökdeniz, Muhammet Hilmi Kotan. The Effects of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Exposure Parameters on Fractal Dimension. EADS. 2026 Aug. 1;53(2):97-103. doi:10.52037/eads.2026.0015