Kamil Jurczyszyn1, Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross1, Izabela Nawrot-Hadzik2, Tomasz Gedrange3, Marzena Dominiak1, Jakub Hadzik4. 1. Department of Dental Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland. 2. Departmetnt of Pharmaceutical Biology and Botany, Medical University of Wroclaw, Wrocław, Poland. 3. Department of Orthodontics, Carl Gustav Carus Campus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, D-01307 Dresden, Germany. 4. Department of Dental Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland. Electronic address: jakub.hadzik@umed.wroc.pl.
Abstract
AIM OR PURPOSE: The geometry of a bone defect is very complex. Its shape is too complicated to measure or compare with other bone defects using only traditional measuring methods Traditional measuring techniques based on the histomorphometric analysis of a bone specimen require supplementary measuring. For the fractal dimension analysis (FDA) mathematic formulas are used to describe complicated and chaotic shapes. The FDA offers a possibility of a comparison between complicated and complex shapes such as a histological image of a bone defect. The aim of this study was to evaluate the FDA of bone defects as a supplementary method for a defect regeneration assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the purpose of this study, microscopic photographs of bone specimens stained with hematoxylin and eosin obtained during a block biopsy were used. The bone blocks used in this study were obtained during a rat animal model study. Specimens were collected from 36 Wistar rats where a cranial defect was created and augmented with five different novel biomaterials and compared to the unfilled defect in the control group. New bone formation in every specimen was histomorphometrically measured by two independent operators and compared to FDA measurements. RESULTS: Both traditional and FDA techniques have shown statistically significant differences between bone formation in test groups compared to the control one; on the other hand, no statistically significant difference was found between other groups. The Pearson's r-test was conducted to measure the linear dependence (correlation) between standard measurements and the FDA, and a positive linear correlation was found -r=0.94. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA can be used as a supplementary method for bone regeneration measurements.
AIM OR PURPOSE: The geometry of a bone defect is very complex. Its shape is too complicated to measure or compare with other bone defects using only traditional measuring methods Traditional measuring techniques based on the histomorphometric analysis of a bone specimen require supplementary measuring. For the fractal dimension analysis (FDA) mathematic formulas are used to describe complicated and chaotic shapes. The FDA offers a possibility of a comparison between complicated and complex shapes such as a histological image of a bone defect. The aim of this study was to evaluate the FDA of bone defects as a supplementary method for a defect regeneration assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the purpose of this study, microscopic photographs of bone specimens stained with hematoxylin and eosin obtained during a block biopsy were used. The bone blocks used in this study were obtained during a rat animal model study. Specimens were collected from 36 Wistar rats where a cranial defect was created and augmented with five different novel biomaterials and compared to the unfilled defect in the control group. New bone formation in every specimen was histomorphometrically measured by two independent operators and compared to FDA measurements. RESULTS: Both traditional and FDA techniques have shown statistically significant differences between bone formation in test groups compared to the control one; on the other hand, no statistically significant difference was found between other groups. The Pearson's r-test was conducted to measure the linear dependence (correlation) between standard measurements and the FDA, and a positive linear correlation was found -r=0.94. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA can be used as a supplementary method for bone regeneration measurements.
Authors: Jakub Hadzik; Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross; Wojciech Simka; Tomasz Gębarowski; Ewa Barg; Aneta Cieśla-Niechwiadowicz; Anna Trzcionka Szajna; Ernest Szajna; Tomasz Gedrange; Marcin Kozakiewicz; Marzena Dominiak; Kamil Jurczyszyn Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 3.748
Authors: Nathália R Gomes; Juliano D S Albergaria; Jonathas A de S Henriques; Tânia M P Amaral; Evandro N Abdo; Gerluza A B Silva; Cláudia Borges Brasileiro Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: R Franciotti; M Moharrami; A Quaranta; M E Bizzoca; A Piattelli; G Aprile; V Perrotti Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 4.507