Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30175923›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018

Computer-based automatic classification of trabecular bone pattern can assist radiographic bone quality assessment at dental implant site.

Laura Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo, Jeroen Van Dessel, G Harry van Lenthe, Ivo Lambrichts, Reinhilde Jacobs

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Jawbone quality classification in dental implant planning and placement studies. A scoping review.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Laura Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo1 Deparment Imaging & Pathology, OMFS-IMPATH research group, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven , Leuven , Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2699-8564
Jeroen Van Dessel1 Deparment Imaging & Pathology, OMFS-IMPATH research group, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven , Leuven , Belgium.
G Harry van Lenthe2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Biomechanics Section , Leuven , Belgium.
Ivo Lambrichts3 Morphology Group, Biomedical Research Institute, Hasselt University , Diepenbeek , Belgium.
Reinhilde Jacobs1 Deparment Imaging & Pathology, OMFS-IMPATH research group, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven , Leuven , Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objective: To develop and validate an automated classification method that determines the trabecular bone pattern at implant site based on three-dimensional bone morphometric parameters derived from CBCT images.

methods: 25 human cadaver mandibles were scanned using CBCT clinical scanning protocol. Volumes-of-interest comprising only the trabecular bone of the posterior regions were selected and segmented for three-dimensional morphometric parameters calculation. Three experts rated all bone regions into one of the three trabecular pattern classes (sparse, intermediate and dense) to generate a reference classification. Morphometric parameters were used to automatically classify the trabecular pattern with linear discriminant analysis statistical model. The discriminatory power of each morphometric parameter for automatic classification was indicated and the accuracy compared to the reference classification. Repeated-measures analysis of variances were used to statistically compare morphometric indices between the three classes. Finally, the outcome of the automatic classification was evaluated against a subjective classification performed independently by four different observers.

results: The overall correct classification was 83% for quantity-, 86% for structure-related parameters and 84% for the parameters combined. Cross-validation showed a 79% model prediction accuracy. Bone volume fraction (BV/TV) had the most discriminatory power in the automatic classification. Trabecular bone patterns could be distinguished based on most morphometric parameters, except for trabecular thickness (Tb.Th) and degree of anisotropy (DA). The interobserver agreement between the subjective observers was fair (0.25), while the test-retest agreement was moderate (0.46). In comparison with the reference standard, the overall agreement was moderate (0.44).

conclusion: Automatic classification performed better than subjective classification with a prediction model comprising structure- and quantity-related morphometric parameters. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: Computer-aided trabecular bone pattern assessment based on morphometric parameters could assist objectivity in clinical bone quality classification.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyDental ImplantsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedAdultAnisotropyCadaverCancellous BoneFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMandibleDental Implants

Identifiers

PMID30175923
PMCPMC6319855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.