SynthesisDento maxillo facial radiology2022
Is jaw fractal dimension a reliable biomarker for osteoporosis screening? A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Synthesis in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fractal analysis in dentistry: a bibliometric analysis (1991-2024).Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Radiomics-based quantitative assessment of the mandibular cortical index on panoramic radiographs.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A methodological framework for fractal analysis in monitoring periapical lesions after endodontic retreatment: a comprehensive parameter optimization study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Masseter Muscle Thickness and Mandibular Trabecular Complexity: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Evaluation of oral manifestations and mandibular bone fractal dimension in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Comparative Fractal Analysis on Orthopantomography Images of Bone Remodeling Changes at 3 Months Between Natural Socket Healing and Immediate Implant Placement.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Changes with Fractal Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- How does the direction of region of interest selection affect the fractal dimension?Oral radiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the First Metacarpal Bone Head and Distal Radius Bone Architecture Using Fractal Analysis of Adolescent Hand-Wrist Radiographs.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Assessment of cortical and trabecular bone structure in the mandible of patients with Behçet's Disease.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Fractal analysis of jawbone structure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the mandibular condyles trabecular structure in patients with severe class III pattern: a computed tomography (CT) fractal analysis study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Modular Neural Networks for Osteoporosis Detection in Mandibular Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of mandibular trabecular and cortical bone by fractal analysis and radiomorphometric indices in bruxist and non-bruxist patients.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo summarize the evidence on the feasibility of maxillomandibular imaging exams-related fractal dimension (FD) in screening patients with osteoporosis.
methodsThis registered systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy statement. High sensitivity search strategies were developed for six primary databases and grey literature. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) items evaluated the risk of bias, and the GRADE approach assessed the evidence certainty.
resultsFrom 1034 records initially identified through database searching, four studies were included (total sample of 747 patients [osteoporosis, 136; control group, 611]). The meta-analysis showed that the overall sensitivity and specificity of the FD were 86.17 and 72.68%, respectively. In general, all studies showed low RoB and applicability concern. The certainty of the evidence was very low to moderate.
conclusionsThis systematic review showed that the jaw-related FD presented sensitivity and specificity values higher than 70%, and its sensitivity in osteoporosis screening was a better parameter than specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.