ArticleOral radiology2024
Comparison of periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and CBCT in the evaluation of trabecular bone structure using fractal analysis.
Article in Oral radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the effects of antibiotic therapy and photobiomodulation with red and infrared lasers on the healing of postextraction sockets of third molars: A randomised controlled trial.Lasers in medical science · 2025Trial
- Fractal analysis in dentistry: a bibliometric analysis (1991-2024).Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Assessment of right-left differences in trabecular bone structure within the maxillary lateral incisor-canine region using fractal analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Anatomical Evaluation of Localized Mandibular Trabecular Texture Differences in Children with Hypodontia Using Radiographic Fractal Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Fractal analysis of bone architecture changes following transcrestal sinus lifting with simultaneous implant placement.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Fractal Analysis of Mandibular Condyles in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorder.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of trabecular bone structure using fractal analysis in patients with peri-implant health and disease.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Mandibular Trabecular Microarchitecture in Stafne Bone Cavity: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of fractal analysis in panoramic radiography and panoramic reconstructions obtained by cone beam computed tomography.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Assessment of Mandibular Bone Architecture in Patients with Endocrine Disorders Using Fractal Dimension and Histogram Analysis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Post-Extraction Bone Changes in Molars Within Personalized Implant-Prosthetic Therapy as Evaluated with Fractal Analysis of CBCT.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to compare imaging techniques to evaluate trabecular bone structure using Fractal Analysis (FA).
methodsFifteen sheep hemimandibles were used for this study. Digital images were obtained using periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). CBCT imaging was performed in standard (STD) and high-resolution (HR) modes. FA was conducted using ImageJ 1.3 software with the box-counting method on the images. The fractal dimension (FD) values were analyzed by the statistical software Jamovi 1.6.23. Statistical significance was accepted as p < 0.05.
resultsThe highest mean FD value was the FD on digital periapical radiographs (PaFD) (1.28 ± 0.04), and the lowest mean FD value was the FD on standard resolution cone-beam computed tomography images (STD-CBCTFD) (1.12 ± 0.10). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the PaFD and the FD on digital panoramic radiographs (PanFD) (p = 0.485), the PaFD was found to be significantly higher than STD-CBCTFD (p < 0.001), and the FD on high-resolution cone-beam computed tomography images (HR-CBCTFD) (p = 0.007). The PanFD was found to be significantly higher than the STD-CBCTFD (p = 0.004).
conclusionAccording to our results, in the evaluation of trabecular bone structure using FA, periapical radiographs and panoramic radiographs have similar image quality for assessment of the FD. On the other hand, CBCT results did not correlate with results from any of the other techniques in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38407759What 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.