LEZYONLU VE SAĞLIKLI ALT DAİMİ 1. BÜYÜK AZI DİŞLERİNE AİT TRABEKÜLER KEMİK BÖLGESİNİN YAŞ VE CİNSİYETE GÖRE FRAKTAL ANALİZLERİNİN PANORAMİK RADYOGRAFİ GÖRÜNTÜLERİ ÜZERİNDE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2024, Volume: 25 Issue: 4, 466 - 480, 22.12.2024

Elif Bilgin , Emin Caner Tümen

https://doi.org/10.69601/meandrosmdj.1587576

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırma, panoramik radyografileri kullanarak periapikal lezyonlu ve sağlıklı alt daimi 1. büyük azı dişlerinin trabeküler kemik fraktal boyut değerlerinin yaş ve cinsiyete göre incelenmesi amacıyla gerçekleştirildi.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Dicle Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Pedodonti Anabilim Dalı'na 2022 yılında başvuran 6-16 yaş arası toplam 216 hastanın panoramik radyografileri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hastalar cinsiyete göre her grupta eşit sayıda olacak şekilde; 6-9, 10-12 ve 13-16 yaş olmak üzere üç gruba ayrıldı. Her bir dijital panoramik radyografi üzerinde iki ayrı bölgeden (periapikal lezyonlu ve sağlıklı 1. büyük azı dişinin apeksindeki trabeküler kemik bölgesinden), 25x25 piksel boyutunda belirlenen ROI’lere, ImageJ programı kullanılarak fraktal analiz uygulandı ve fraktal boyut hesaplamaları yapıldı. Veriler Shapiro Wilk’s ve/veya Kolmogorov Smirnov testleri ve Mann Whitney U ve Kruskal Wallis-H testlerinden yararlanılarak analiz edildi. Tüm istatistiksel testler için güven aralığı %95 ve anlamlılık sınırı olarak p<0,05 kabul edildi.
Bulgular: Çalışma sonuçlarına göre lezyonlu bölgenin fraktal boyut değeri ortalaması 1,106 iken, sağlıklı bölgenin fraktal boyut değeri ortalaması ise 1,116 olarak tespit edildi. Elde edilen fraktal boyut değerlerinde hem lezyonlu ve sağlıklı gruplar arasında hem de yaş ve cinsiyet grupları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık bulunamadı (p>0,05).
Sonuç: Fraktal analiz, erken evre periapikal lezyonları tespit etmek için güvenilir bir yöntemdir. Ancak, daha kapsamlı değerlendirmeler için gelecekteki çalışmalarda histolojik ve klinik parametrelerin entegrasyonu ile 2D ve 3D görüntüleme tekniklerinin daha fazla örneklem büyüklükleriyle karşılaştırılması gerekmektedir.

Keywords

Periapikal lezyon, Panoramik radyografi, Fraktal analiz, ImageJ, ROI

EVALUATION OF FRACTAL ANALYSES OF THE TRABECULAR BONE REGION IN LESIONED AND HEALTHY MANDIBULAR FIRST PERMANENT MOLARS ACCORDING TO AGE AND GENDER ON PANORAMIC RADIOGRAPHS

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the fractal dimension values of trabecular bone in periapical
lesions and healthy mandibular first permanent molars, based on age and gender, using panoramic
radiographs.
Material and Methods: The panoramic radiographs of a total of 216 patients aged 6-16 years who applied
to Dicle University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Pedodontics in 2022 were retrospectively examined.
The patients were equally distributed by gender into three age groups: 6-9, 10-12, and 13-16 years. Fractal
analysis was applied using the ImageJ program to the regions of interest (ROI’s) of 25x25 pixels determined
from two different regions on each digital panoramic radiograph, and fractal dimension calculations were
performed. The data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk and/or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, as well as
the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. The confidence interval for all statistical tests was set at
95%, and the significance level was accepted as p<0.05.
Results: According to the results of the study, the average fractal dimension value of the lesioned region
was 1.106, while the average fractal dimension value of the healthy region was 1.116. No statistically
significant difference was found in the fractal dimension values between both the lesioned and healthy
groups, as well as between the age and gender groups (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Fractal dimension (FD) calculation is a reliable method for detecting early-stage periapical
lesions. However, to achieve more comprehensive evaluations, future studies should integrate histological
and clinical parameters and compare 2D and 3D imaging techniques with larger sample sizes.

Keywords

Periapical lesion, Panoramic radiography, Fractal analysis, ImageJ, ROI

References

• 1. Bender I, Seltzer S. Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone: II. Journal of endodontics. 2003;29(11):707-12.
• 2. Frost HM. Dynamics of bone remodeling. Bone biodynamics. 1964:315-34.
• 3. Updike SX, Nowzari H. Fractal analysis of dental radiographs to detect periodontitis‐induced trabecular changes. Journal of periodontal research. 2008;43(6):658-64.
• 4. Geraets W, Van Der Stelt P. Fractal properties of bone. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2000;29(3):144-53.
• 5. Mandelbrot BB, Mandelbrot BB. The fractal geometry of nature: WH freeman New York; 1982.
• 6. Kurşun-Çakmak EŞ, 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 surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. 2018;126(2):184-91.
• 7. 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;88(5):628-35.
• 8. Kantor ML, Zeichner SJ, Valachovic RW, Reiskin AB. Efficacy of dental radiographic practices: options for image receptors, examination selection, and patient selection. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1989;119(2):259-68.
• 9. Jeffcoat MK. Radiographic methods for the detection of progressive alveolar bone loss. Journal of periodontology. 1992;63:367-72.
• 10. Sener E, Cinarcik S, Baksi BG. Use of fractal analysis for the discrimination of trabecular changes between individuals with healthy gingiva or moderate periodontitis. Journal of periodontology. 2015;86(12):1364-9.
• 11. 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;49(2):20180457.
• 12. Southard TE, Southard KA, Jakobsen JR, Hillis SL, Najim CA. Fractal dimension in radiographic analysis of alveolar process bone. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 1996;82(5):569-76.
• 13. Bollen A, Taguchi A, Hujoel P, Hollender L. Fractal dimension on dental radiographs. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2014.
• 14. Jolley L, Majumdar S, Kapila S. Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2006;35(6):393-7.
• 15. Amer ME, Heo M-S, Brooks SL, Benavides E. Anatomical variations of trabecular bone structure in intraoral radiographs using fractal and particles count analyses. Imaging science in dentistry. 2012;42(1):5.
• 16. Demirbaş AK, Ergün S, Güneri P, Aktener BO, Boyacıoğlu H. Mandibular bone changes in sickle cell anemia: fractal analysis. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2008;106(1):e41-e8.
• 17. Gumussoy I, Miloglu O, Cankaya E, Bayrakdar IS. Fractal properties of the trabecular pattern of the mandible in chronic renal failure. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2016;45(5):20150389.
• 18. 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 Radiology. 2019;35:23-8.
• 19. 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. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2005;100(4):467-72.
• 20. Aktuna Belgin C, Serindere G. Evaluation of trabecular bone changes in patients with periodontitis using fractal analysis: A periapical radiography study. Journal of Periodontology. 2020;91(7):933-7.
• 21. Shrout MK, Jett S, Mailhot JM, Potter BJ, Borke JL, Hildebolt CF. Digital image analysis of cadaver mandibular trabecular bone patterns. Journal of periodontology. 2003;74(9):1342-7.
• 22. Ruttimann UE, Webber RL, Hazelrig JB. Fractal dimension from radiographs of peridental alveolar bone: a possible diagnostic indicator of osteoporosis. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology. 1992;74(1):98-110.
• 23. Sanchez-Molina D, Velazquez-Ameijide J, Quintana V, Arregui-Dalmases C, Crandall JR, Subit D, et al. Fractal dimension and mechanical properties of human cortical bone. Medical engineering & physics. 2013;35(5):576-82.
• 24. 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(5):138-44.
• 25. Güleç M, Taşsöker M, Özcan S. Mandibular trabeküler kemiğin fraktal boyutu: Yaş, cinsiyet ve ilgi alani seçiminin önemi nedir? Selcuk Dental Journal. 2019;6(4):15-9.
• 26. Alman A, Johnson L, Calverley D, Grunwald G, Lezotte D, Hokanson J. Diagnostic capabilities of fractal dimension and mandibular cortical width to identify men and women with decreased bone mineral density. Osteoporosis International. 2012;23:1631-6.
• 27. Podsiadlo P, Dahl L, Englund M, Lohmander L, Stachowiak G. Differences in trabecular bone texture between knees with and without radiographic osteoarthritis detected by fractal methods. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2008;16(3):323-9.
• 28. Gulec M, Tassoker M, Ozcan S, Orhan K. Evaluation of the mandibular trabecular bone in patients with bruxism using fractal analysis. Oral radiology. 2021;37:36-45.
• 29. Pornprasertsuk S, Ludlow J, Webber R, Tyndall D, Yamauchi M. Analysis of fractal dimensions of rat bones from film and digital images. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2001;30(3):179-83.