Abstract

Letter to Editor

Evaluation of ImageJ for Relative Bone Density Measurement and Clinical Application

Manuel Geiger*, Galina Blem and Arwed Ludwig

Published: 15 December, 2016 | Volume 1 - Issue 1 | Pages: 012-021

The main method for evaluation of healing processes of the jaws in oral and maxillofacial surgery are radiological diagnostics. Quantitative description is possible by measuring the relative bone density, which puts the mean grey value of a certain area in relation to the surrounding bone tissue. In this research the intra- and interindividual variability is determined for this method and a standard operation procedure is elaborated.

Therefore ten panoramic radiographs of typical surgical indications in oral a maxillofacial surgery were analyzed by three different members of the workgroup, five times each. The measurements were analyzed with descriptive and comparative statistical methods.

The mean coefficient of variation was 2.972% ± 2.361%. The measurements of defect regions were more consistent (2.252% ± 1.928%) than the measurements of surrounding bone (3.691% ± 2.626%). The analysis of variance did not show a statistically significant influence of the different raters to the measurements (ANOVA, Pr>F = 0.9462).

Following the standard operation procedure this method seems to be an easy, cheap and close to practice way to visualize healing process of the jaws. Especially in the mandibula, but also in the maxilla with special reconsideration of the sinus-region, it seems to be suitable.

Read Full Article HTML DOI: 10.29328/journal.johcs.1001002 Cite this Article Read Full Article PDF

Keywords:

Relative bone density; Bone healing; ImageJ; Mean grey value; Repeatability; Standard operation procedure

References

  1. Sitzmann F. Wann sind zur Sicherung von Diagnose und Therapie Röntgenaufnahmen nötig? Stellungnahme der DGZMK 2/93 V 1.0, Stand 12/92. Published by: DGZMK 1993.
  2. Horowitz R, Holtzclaw D, Rosen PS. A review on alveolar ridge preservation following tooth extraction. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012; 12: 149-160. Ref.: https://goo.gl/gBOShV
  3. Pecora G, De Leonardis D, Ibrahim N, Bovi M, Cornelini R. The use of calcium sulphate in the surgical treatment of a 'through and through' periradicular lesion. Int Endod J. 2001; 34: 189-197. Ref.: https://goo.gl/VUED49
  4. Gowin W, Saparin PI, Kurths J, Felsenberg D. Measures of complexity for cancellous bone. Technol Health Care. 1998; 6: 373-390. Ref.: https://goo.gl/7Hwfze
  5. Thomsen FS, Peña JA, Lu Y, Huber G, Morlock M,et al. A new algorithm for estimating the rod volume fraction and the trabecular thickness from in vivo computed tomography. Med Phys. 2016; 6598. Ref.: https://goo.gl/uKwk2y
  6. Norton, MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 79-84. Ref.: https://goo.gl/AhCKbU
  7. Devlin H, Horner K, Ledgerton D. A Comparison of Maxillary and Mandibular Bone Mineral Densities. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 323–327. Ref.: https://goo.gl/y8e6op
  8. Winkler SR, Booss J. Comparison of techniques for recovering murine cytomegalovirus from a macrophage-enriched subpopulation of mice. J Clin Microbiol. 1980; 12: 785-789. Ref.: https://goo.gl/zfx4vv
  9. Huda, W. Radiation risks: what is to be done? AJR AM J Roentgenol. 2014; 124-127. Ref.: https://goo.gl/j2GC2w
  10. Yasar F, Apaydin B, Yilmaz HH. The effects of image compression on quantitative measurements of digital panoramic radiographs. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012; 1074-1081. Ref.: https://goo.gl/dXC4iK
  11. Chiapasco M, Rossi A, Motta JJ, Crescentini M. Spontaneous bone regeneration after enucleation of large mandibular cysts: a radiographic computed analysis of 27 consecutive cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 942-948. Ref.: https://goo.gl/GaTvxu
  12. Ihan Hren N. Miljavec M. Spontaneous bone healing of the large bone defects in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 1111-1116. Ref.: https://goo.gl/boQANP
  13. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Meth. 2012; 671-675. Ref.: https://goo.gl/A0lzi3
  14. Abramoff, M.D, Magalhães, Paulo J, Ram, et al. Image Processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics International. 2004; 36-42. Ref.: https://goo.gl/xPSsx4
  15. Chesher D. Evaluating Assay Precision. Clin Biochem Rev. 2008; 23-26. Ref.: https://goo.gl/k08cXdA

Figures:

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 1

Figure 3

Figure 1

Figure 4

Figure 1

Figure 5

Figure 1

Figure 6

Figure 1

Figure 7

Figure 1

Figure 8

Figure 1

Figure 9

Similar Articles

Recently Viewed

Read More

Most Viewed

Read More

Help ?