ArticleOral radiology2026
Comparison of fractal analysis in panoramic radiography and panoramic reconstructions obtained by cone beam computed tomography.
Article in Oral radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fractal analysis in dentistry: a bibliometric analysis (1991-2024).Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Fractal analysis of bone architecture changes following transcrestal sinus lifting with simultaneous implant placement.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of trabecular bone structure using fractal analysis in patients with peri-implant health and disease.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of panoramic image acquisition and digitization methods on fractal dimension measurement in panoramic radiographs.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the use of panoramic radiography (PAN) and panoramic reconstructions obtained from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the evaluation of trabecular bone structure using fractal dimension (FD).
methodsThis cross-sectional study evaluated PAN and CBCT images of 20 patients. In each tomographic volume, panoramic reconstructions were obtained with the following thicknesses: 160 µm; 480 µm; 800 µm; 1.1 mm; 2.1 mm; 3.0 mm; 4.0 mm; 5.0 mm; 10.1 mm; 14.9 mm; 20.0 mm; 29.9 mm; 40.2 mm, and 50.1 mm. For each image acquired, the FD value of the regions of interest (ROI) was calculated by the White and Rudolph technique. Six ROIs of 40 × 40 pixels were manually selected 2 mm superior, 2 mm anterior and 2 mm inferior to the mental foramen.
resultsThe results were statistically significant for the FD values obtained from the different exams evaluated (p < 0.001) and for the ROIs analyzed (p = 0.021). However, when the type of imaging exam and the ROIs were compared, no significant difference was observed between the groups (p = 0.993). Regarding the different panoramic reconstruction thicknesses, a difference was observed between the thinner reconstructions (160 µm and 480 µm) and the thicker reconstructions (29.9 mm; 40.2 mm and 50.1 mm) (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThere are differences between the FD values obtained from PAN and panoramic reconstructions from CBCT, and differences between ROIs within the same imaging exam.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40965827What 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.