Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33511446›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2021

Use of fractal analysis in dental images for osteoporosis detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

R Franciotti, M Moharrami, A Quaranta, M E Bizzoca, A Piattelli, G Aprile, V Perrotti

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

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

  1. Mandibular Radiographic Assessment in Sickle Cell Disease: A Systematic Review of Radiomorphometric Indices and Fractal Dimension.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

R FranciottiDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, University "G. d'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8819-1061
M MoharramiIndependent Researcher, Private Practice, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4364-7969
A QuarantaSydney Dental Hospital, Sydney, 2010, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4225-9374
M E BizzocaDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6722-6499
A PiattelliDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara "Gabriele D'Annunzio", Via dei vestini, 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6246-8130
G AprilePrivate Practice, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2007-4077
V PerrottiDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara "Gabriele D'Annunzio", Via dei vestini, 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy. v.perrotti@unich.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7652-1660

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fractal dimension (FD) calculated on oral radiographs has been proposed as a useful tool to screen for osteoporosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis firstly aimed at assessing the reliability of FD measures in distinguishing osteoporotic patients (OP) from healthy controls (HC), and secondly, to identify a standardized procedure of FD calculation in dental radiographs for the possible use as a surrogate measure of osteoporosis. A comprehensive search was conducted up to September 2020 using PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. Meta-analysis was performed on FD values calculated for HC and OP. Overall, 293 articles were identified. After a three steps screening, 19 studies were included in the qualitative appraisal and 12 were considered for meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies was generally low. Most of the studies included used White and Rudolph and box counting to process the images and to calculate FD, respectively. Overall, 51% of the studies found a meaningful difference between HC and OP groups. Meta-analyses showed that to date, FD measures on dental radiographs are not able to distinguish the OP from HC group significantly. From the current evidence, the use of FD for the identification of OP is not reliable, and no clear conclusion can be drawn due to the heterogeneity of studies. The present review revealed the need for further studies and provided the fundamentals to design them in order to find a standardized procedure for FD calculation (regions for FD assessment; images processing technique; methods for FD measurement). More effort should be made to identify osteoporosis using dental images which are cheap and routinely taken during periodic dental examinations.

Indexed as

FractalsOsteoporosisHumansRadiography, PanoramicReproducibility of ResultsBone mineral densityCone-beam computed tomographyDentalFractalsOsteoporosisPanoramicRadiography

Identifiers

PMID33511446
PMCPMC8128830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.