DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jolley, L
Right arrow Articles by Kapila, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jolley, L
Right arrow Articles by Kapila, S
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2006) 35, 393-397
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/30969642

RESEARCH

Technical factors in fractal analysis of periapical radiographs

L Jolley1, S Majumdar2 and S Kapila*,3

1 Department of Growth and Development, University of California, San Francisco, USA; 2 Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, USA; 3 Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Michigan, USA

*Correspondence to: Sunil Kapila, Robert E. Browne Professor and Chair, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1078, USA; Email: skapila{at}umich.edu

Received 31 July 2005; accepted 26 December 2005

Objectives: Fractal analysis quantifies complex geometric structures by generating a fractal dimension, which can measure trabecular bone density. The use of non-standardized radiographic techniques potentially limits the reliability of fractal analysis. The objective of this study was to determine how variations in radiographic technique affect fractal dimension.

Methods: Periapical radiographs of maxillary incisors taken on eight dry human skulls at varying angulation, tube potential and impulse settings were subjected to Fourier transform fractal analysis.

Results: A significant (p<0.05) difference in fractal dimension, ranging from 2.5 to 2.9, was found between the skulls, potentially reflecting variations in bone trabeculation. However, variations in angulation, tube potential or impulse did not have a statistically significant effect (p>0.05) on fractal dimension, with the standard deviation of the fractal dimension ranging from ±0.005 to ±0.062 at various radiographic machine settings.

Conclusions: This study indicates that non-standardized periapical radiographs may provide a reliable method for determining fractal dimensions, which could be useful in analysing changes in alveolar bone density in various bone disorders.

Keywords: fractal analysis; fractal dimension; periapical radiographs; maxillary bone; bone density






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.