Bardia Vadiati Saberi1, Negar Khosravifard2, Kowsar Nooshmand3, Zahra Dalili Kajan2, Mohammad Ebrahim Ghaffari4. 1. Department of Periodontics, Dental Sciences Research Center, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. 2. Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Sciences Research Center, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. 3. Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Dental Sciences Research Center, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The effect of metallic objects on the fractal dimension (FD), bone area fraction (BAF) and gray scale values (GSVs) of cone-beam CT (CBCT) images was assessed. Also, FD, BAF and GSV were compared among CBCT, digital periapical and panoramic radiographies. METHODS: Digital periapical and panoramic radiographs were acquired from six blocks of bovine rib. Additionally, different arrangements of titanium implants and intracanal metallic posts were created in the bone blocks and CBCT scans were taken from the different implant-root arrangements. The three radiographical modalities were compared by analysis of variance. Pairwise comparisons between the modalities were performed by the Tukey test (significance level set at 0.05). RESULTS: Different root-implant arrangements in the CBCT images revealed no significant differences in the FD (p = 0.920), BAF and GSV values (p = 0.623). FD differed significantly among the three modalities (p < 0.001). Significant differences were found between CBCT and each of the periapical and panoramic techniques (p < 0.001), while no remarkable differences were observed in the FD of the periapical and panoramic images (p = 0.294). BAF and GSV showed significantly different results among the three radiographical techniques (p < 0.001). The difference was remarkable between CBCT and periapical (p < 0.001), CBCT and panoramic (p < 0.001) and periapical and panoramic (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Presence of titanium implants and intracanal posts does not produce different results in the fractal analysis (FA) of the CBCT images. The trabecular bone pattern is best assessed by FA of the periapical radiographs followed by the panoramic and CBCT techniques, respectively.
OBJECTIVES: The effect of metallic objects on the fractal dimension (FD), bone area fraction (BAF) and gray scale values (GSVs) of cone-beam CT (CBCT) images was assessed. Also, FD, BAF and GSV were compared among CBCT, digital periapical and panoramic radiographies. METHODS: Digital periapical and panoramic radiographs were acquired from six blocks of bovine rib. Additionally, different arrangements of titanium implants and intracanal metallic posts were created in the bone blocks and CBCT scans were taken from the different implant-root arrangements. The three radiographical modalities were compared by analysis of variance. Pairwise comparisons between the modalities were performed by the Tukey test (significance level set at 0.05). RESULTS: Different root-implant arrangements in the CBCT images revealed no significant differences in the FD (p = 0.920), BAF and GSV values (p = 0.623). FD differed significantly among the three modalities (p < 0.001). Significant differences were found between CBCT and each of the periapical and panoramic techniques (p < 0.001), while no remarkable differences were observed in the FD of the periapical and panoramic images (p = 0.294). BAF and GSV showed significantly different results among the three radiographical techniques (p < 0.001). The difference was remarkable between CBCT and periapical (p < 0.001), CBCT and panoramic (p < 0.001) and periapical and panoramic (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Presence of titanium implants and intracanal posts does not produce different results in the fractal analysis (FA) of the CBCT images. The trabecular bone pattern is best assessed by FA of the periapical radiographs followed by the panoramic and CBCT techniques, respectively.
Authors: R Pauwels; O Nackaerts; N Bellaiche; H Stamatakis; K Tsiklakis; A Walker; H Bosmans; R Bogaerts; R Jacobs; K Horner Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.039