The effects of technical factors on the fractal dimension in different dental radiographic images.

IF 0.9 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE European Oral Research Pub Date : 2023-05-04 DOI:10.26650/eor.2023984422
Mehmet Amuk, Gamze Sirin Saribal, Nihal Ersu, Serkan Yilmaz
{"title":"The effects of technical factors on the fractal dimension in different dental radiographic images.","authors":"Mehmet Amuk, Gamze Sirin Saribal, Nihal Ersu, Serkan Yilmaz","doi":"10.26650/eor.2023984422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the impact of exposure parameters and image formats on fractal dimension (FD) values in periapical, panoramic, and CBCT images.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Seven dry male mandibles were selected, and a Gutta-Percha was used to identify identical regions of interest. A periapical radiograph was taken with 60 kVp/7 mA and exported in DICOM, JPEG, TIFF, and PNG formats. Nine periapical radiographs (60, 65, 70 kVp; 4, 5, 6 mA) were taken from seven dry human mandibles. Additionally, 12 panoramic radiographs (60, 70, 81, 90 kVp; 5, 8, 13 mA) and 10 CBCT images (with different scanning options and FOVs) were taken from each mandible. FDs were measured from a standard area.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intra-class correlation coefficient demonstrated a high degree of agreement between observers. No significant difference was found between TIFF and PNG formats (p > 0.05). The highest FD mean was found in TIFF format, while the lowest FD mean was found in JPEG format (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between kVp and mA settings in periapical images. In panoramic images, a significant difference was found at 90 kVp (p = 0.001) and 13 mA (p<0.001), with lower FD values observed at these settings. There was no significant difference between FOV and resolution in CBCT images (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The format of the image can influence FD. For periapical and panoramic radiographs, kVp and mA settings do not have a significant impact on FD. However, fractal analysis may not be an ideal method for evaluating three-dimensional images, such as those obtained with CBCT.</p>","PeriodicalId":41993,"journal":{"name":"European Oral Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/60/34/eor-057-068.PMC10387138.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.2023984422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of exposure parameters and image formats on fractal dimension (FD) values in periapical, panoramic, and CBCT images.

Materials and methods: Seven dry male mandibles were selected, and a Gutta-Percha was used to identify identical regions of interest. A periapical radiograph was taken with 60 kVp/7 mA and exported in DICOM, JPEG, TIFF, and PNG formats. Nine periapical radiographs (60, 65, 70 kVp; 4, 5, 6 mA) were taken from seven dry human mandibles. Additionally, 12 panoramic radiographs (60, 70, 81, 90 kVp; 5, 8, 13 mA) and 10 CBCT images (with different scanning options and FOVs) were taken from each mandible. FDs were measured from a standard area.

Results: The intra-class correlation coefficient demonstrated a high degree of agreement between observers. No significant difference was found between TIFF and PNG formats (p > 0.05). The highest FD mean was found in TIFF format, while the lowest FD mean was found in JPEG format (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between kVp and mA settings in periapical images. In panoramic images, a significant difference was found at 90 kVp (p = 0.001) and 13 mA (p<0.001), with lower FD values observed at these settings. There was no significant difference between FOV and resolution in CBCT images (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: The format of the image can influence FD. For periapical and panoramic radiographs, kVp and mA settings do not have a significant impact on FD. However, fractal analysis may not be an ideal method for evaluating three-dimensional images, such as those obtained with CBCT.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
技术因素对不同牙科放射影像分形维度的影响。
目的:本研究旨在评估曝光参数和图像格式对根尖周图像、全景图像和 CBCT 图像分形维度(FD)值的影响:选取 7 个干燥的男性下颌骨,用 Gutta-Percha 确定相同的感兴趣区。以 60 kVp/7 mA 的电压拍摄根尖周X光片,并导出为 DICOM、JPEG、TIFF 和 PNG 格式。九张根尖周X光片(60、65、70 kVp;4、5、6 mA)取自七个干燥的人类下颌骨。此外,每个下颌骨还拍摄了 12 张全景 X 光片(60、70、81、90 kVp;5、8、13 mA)和 10 张 CBCT 图像(采用不同的扫描选项和 FOV)。结果:类内相关系数显示观察者之间的一致性很高。TIFF 和 PNG 格式之间无明显差异(p > 0.05)。TIFF 格式的 FD 平均值最高,而 JPEG 格式的 FD 平均值最低(p 0.05):结论:图像格式会影响 FD。对于根尖周和全景 X 光片,kVp 和 mA 设置对 FD 的影响不大。不过,分形分析可能不是评估三维图像(如 CBCT 获得的图像)的理想方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Oral Research
European Oral Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The antimicrobial effect of R-limonene and its nano emulsion on Enterococcus faecalis - In vitro study The effect of ozone water disinfection on color stability of nanoparticles reinforced maxillofacial silicones Finite element analysis of stresses on the skull base caused by trauma during sinus lift with mallet and osteotome Management of jump space in immediate implants with and without demineralised freeze dried bone allograft: a randomised controlled trial The influence of toluidine blue staining on decision-making for the selection of biopsy sites in oral disorders
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1