Using the fractal dimension method to assess ossification after open sinus lift surgery

Abstract

Objective: The present study aims to use the fractal dimension method to assess ossification occurring in patients undergoing an open sinus lift surgery performed with the use of xenograft. Material and Method: In our study, we used 90 orthopantomographs of a total of 43 patients. Our study consists of three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C. Using the fractal dimension method, we assessed the orthopantomographs taken within three to six months after the open sinus lift surgery (Group A), taken after six to nine months after the open sinus lift surgery (Group B), and taken more than nine months after the open sinus lift surgery (Group C). The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS V23. The compliance of the data with the normal distribution was examined using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Result: The three-way statistics made between the mean values of the groups revealed a difference (p=0,033). The density of the xenograft material in the study area tended to decrease starting from the period of three to six months after the surgery. Conclusion: The fractal dimension method can be used to assess ossification occurring after open sinus lift surgery that is performed with the use of xenografts.

Keywords

• farctal dimension
• open sinus lift
• xenograft

References

1. Jurisic M, Markovic A, Radulovic M, Brkovic BM, Sándor GK. Maxillary sinus floor augmentation: comparing osteotome with lateral window immediate and delayed implant placements. An interim report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2008; 106: 820-7.
2. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson A. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1: 11-25.
3. Galindo‐Moreno P, Moreno‐Riestra I, Ávila G. et al. Histomorphometric comparison of maxillary pristine bone and composite bone graft biopsies obtained after sinus augmentation. Clin Oral Impl Res 2010; 21: 122-8.
4. Aparicio C, Perales P, Rangert B. Tilted implants as an alternative to maxillary sinus grafting: a clinical, radiologic, and periotest study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001; 3: 39-49.
5. Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003; 8: 328-43.
6. Schlegel KA, Fichtner G, Schultze-Mosgau S, Wiltfang J. Histologic findings in sinus augmentation with autogenous bone chips versus a bovine bone substitute. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18.
7. Sanchez-Molina D, Velazquez-Ameijide J, Quintana V. et al. Fractal dimension and mechanical properties of human cortical bone. Med Eng & Phys 2013; 35: 576-82.
8. Sánchez I, Uzcátegui G. Fractals in dentistry. J Dent 2011; 39: 273-92.

9. Perrier E, Bird N, Rieu M. Generalizing the fractal model of soil structure: the pore—solid fractal approach. Dev in Soil Science 2000; 47-74.
10. Saeed SS, Ibraheem UM, Alnema MM. Quantitative analysis by pixel intensity and fractal dimensions for imaging diagnosis of periapical lesions. Int J Enhanc Res Sci Technol Eng 2014; 3: 138-44.
11. Chen S-K, Oviir T, Lin C-H, Leu L-J, Cho B-H, Hollender L. Digital imaging analysis with mathematical morphology and fractal dimension for evaluation of periapical lesions following endodontic treatment. OOOOE 2005; 100: 467-72.
12. Bollen AM, Taguchi A, Hujoel PP, Hollender L. G. . Fractal dimension on dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 270-5..
13. Baig MA, Bacha D. Histology, Bone. StatPearls [Internet] 2021.
14. Rosen CJ. Pathogenesis of osteoporosis. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000; 14: 181-93.
15. White SC, Rudolph DJ. Alterations of the trabecular pattern of the jaws in patients with osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radio Endod 1999; 88: 628-35.
16. Gedrange T, Hietschold V, Mai R, Wolf P, Nicklisch M, Harzer W. An evaluation of resonance frequency analysis for the determination of the primary stability of orthodontic palatal implants. A study in human cadavers. Clin Oral Impl Res 2005; 16: 425-31.
17. Dursun E, Dursun CK, Eratalay K, Orhan K, Celik HH, Tözüm TF. Do porous titanium granule grafts affect bone microarchitecture at augmented maxillary sinus sites? A pilot split-mouth human study. Implant Dent 2015; 24: 427-33.
18. Huang HL, Chen MY, Hsu JT, Li YF, Chang CH, Chen KT. Three‐dimensional bone structure and bone mineral density evaluations of autogenous bone graft after sinus augmentation: a microcomputed tomography analysis. Clin Oral Impl Res 2012; 23: 1098-103.
19. Browaeys H, Defrancq J, Dierens MC, et al. A retrospective analysis of early and immediately loaded osseotite implants in cross‐arch rehabilitations in edentulous maxillas and mandibles up to 7 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013; 15: 380-9.
20. Ramírez‐Fernández MP, Calvo‐Guirado JL, Maté‐Sánchez del Val JE, Delgado‐Ruiz RA, Negri B, Barona‐Dorado C. Ultrastructural study by backscattered electron imaging and elemental microanalysis of bone‐to‐biomaterial interface and mineral degradation of porcine xenografts used in maxillary sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Impl Res 2013; 24: 523-30.
21. Orsini G, Scarano A, Piattelli M, Piccirilli M, Caputi S, Piattelli A. Histologic and ultrastructural analysis of regenerated bone in maxillary sinus augmentation using a porcine bone-derived biomaterial. J Periodontol 2006; 77: 1984-90.
22. Al-Nawas B, Schiegnitz E. Augmentation procedures using bone substitute materials or autogenous bone-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014; 7: 219-34.
23. Yildirim M, Spiekermann H, Biesterfeld S, Edelhoff D. Maxillary sinus augmentation using xenogenic bone substitute material Bio‐Oss® in combination with venous blood: A histologic and histomorphometric study in humans. Clin Oral Impl Res 2000; 11: 217-29.
24. Fazzalari N, Parkinson I. Fractal properties of cancellous bone of the iliac crest in vertebral crush fracture. Bone 1998; 23: 53-7.
25. Cakur B, Şahin A, Dagistan S, et al. Dental panoramic radiography in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Int Med Res 2008; 36: 792-9.
26. Dagistan S, Bilge O. 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: 290-4.
27. Carballido-Gamio J, Majumdar S. Clinical utility of microarchitecture measurements of trabecular bone. Curr Osteoporos Reports 2006; 4: 64-70.
28. Demiralp KÖ, Kurşun-Çakmak EŞ, Bayrak S, Akbulut N, Atakan C, Orhan K. Trabecular structure designation using fractal analysis technique on panoramic radiographs of patients with bisphosphonate intake: a preliminary study. Oral Radiol 2019; 35: 23-8.
29. Arsan B, Köse TE, Çene E, Özcan İ. Assessment of the trabecular structure of mandibular condyles in patients with temporomandibular disorders using fractal analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 123: 382-91.
30. Göller Bulut D, Bayrak S, Uyeturk U, Ankarali H. Mandibular indexes and fractal properties on the panoramic radiographs of the patients using aromatase inhibitors. Br J Radiol 2018; 91: 20180442.
31. Gomes NR, Albergaria JD, Henriques JAdS, et al. Comparison between fractal analysis and radiopacity evaluation as a tool for studying repair of an osseous defect in an animal model using biomaterials. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2019; 48: 20180466.
32. Ustaoğlu G, Bulut DG, Gümüş K. Evaluation of different platelet-rich concentrates effects on early soft tissue healing and socket preservation after tooth extraction. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 121: 539-44.
33. Gümüşsoy İ. Application of fractal analysis method on panoramic radiographs and effect of different X-Ray devices on fractal dimension value. Sakarya Tıp Derg 9: 492-8.