Fractal analysis of peri-implant bone density surrounding implant with different state of antagonist

Ju-Hee Kim; Jae-In Lee

doi:10.4047/jkap.2016.54.1.14

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.54(1) > 1034864

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim and Lee: Fractal analysis of peri-implant bone density surrounding implant with different state of antagonist

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2016;54(1):14-20.

Published online: 18 December 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2016.54.1.14

Fractal analysis of peri-implant bone density surrounding implant with different state of antagonist

Ju-Hee Kim, Jae-In Lee^∗

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Iksan, Republic of Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Jae-In Lee Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, 77, Dunsan-ro, Seo-gu, Daejeon 35233, Republic of Korea +82 42 366 1150: e-mail, greatone@wku.ac.kr

Received 16 December 201513 January 2016 Accepted 17 January 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to know whether there is significant difference of peri-implant bone density according to the state of antagonist region.

Materials and methods

51 patients who had implant operation in Daejeon Dental Hospital of Wonkwang University participated in this study and total of 51 implants were analyzed. Implants were classified depending on opposing antagonist region, gender, age and location of jaw. The opposing antagonist region was divided into four groups; natural tooth, implant, pontic and edentulous region. Fractal analysis was performed using two periapical radiographs; one after implant placement and the other after 10 weeks following prosthetic restoration. The analysis was done by Image J. The data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison test.

Results

The mean value of fractal difference was 0.009 ± 0.048 with opposing natural tooth, 0.026 ± 0.080 with opposing implant, 0.025 ± 0.068 with opposing pontic and 0.093 ± 0.171 with opposing edentulous area. There was a statistically significant difference in fractal value between opposing implant and opposing edentulous state. And there was no statistically significant difference according to age, gender and location of jaw.

Conclusion

There was no statistically significant difference between 3 groups except opposing edentulous region and there was a statistically significant difference between opposing implant and edentulous region. And there was no statistically significant difference according to age, gender and location of jaw. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2016;54:14-20)

Keywords: Implant, Bone density, Fractal analysis, Antagonist

REFERENCES

1.Pearson OM., Lieberman DE. The aging of Wolff' s “law”: ontogeny and responses to mechanical loading in cortical bone. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004. 39:63–99.

2.Traini T., Degidi M., Iezzi G., Artese L., Piattelli A. Comparative evaluation of the peri-implant bone tissue mineral density around unloaded titanium dental implants. J Dent. 2007. 35:84–92.

3.Gazit D., Ehrlich J., Kohen Y., Bab I. Effect of occlusal (mechanical) stimulus on bone remodelling in rat mandibular condyle. J Oral Pathol. 1987. 16:395–8.

4.Carlsson L., Röstlund T., Albrektsson B., Albrektsson T. Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988. 3:21–4.

5.Ivanoff CJ., Sennerby L., Johansson C., Rangert B., Lekholm U. Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants. An experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997. 26:141–8.

6.Wennerberg A., Albrektsson T., Andersson B., Krol JJ. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995. 6:24–30.

7.Johansson C., Albrektsson T. Integration of screw implants in the rabbit: a 1-year follow-up of removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1987. 2:69–75.

8.Johansson CB., Sennerby L., Albrektsson T. A removal torque and histomorphometric study of bone tissue reactions to commercially pure titanium and Vitallium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991. 6:437–41.

9.Denissen H., Verhey H., de Blieck J., Corten F., Klein C., van Lingen A. Dual X-ray absorptiometry for alveolar bone: precision of peri-implant mineral measurements ex vivo. J Periodontal Res. 1996. 31:265–70.

10.Ellwood R., Horner K., Alexander S., Davies R. A digital subtraction radiography investigation of upper first molar proximal bone density changes in adolescents. J Periodontal Res. 1998. 33:172–7.

11.Bassi F., Procchio M., Fava C., Schierano G., Preti G. Bone density in human dentate and edentulous mandibles using computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999. 10:356–61.

12.Peitgen HO., Jurgens H., Saupe D. Chaos and fractals: new frontiers of science. New York: Springer-Verlag;1992.

13.Weinans H., Huiskes R., Grootenboer HJ. The behavior of adaptive bone-remodeling simulation models. J Biomech. 1992. 25:1425–41.

14.Feik SA., Storey E., Ellender G. Stress induced periosteal changes. Br J Exp Pathol. 1987. 68:803–13.

15.Rubin CT., Lanyon LE. Regulation of bone mass by mechanical strain magnitude. Calcif Tissue Int. 1985. 37:411–7.

16.Urdaneta RA., Daher S., Lery J., Emanuel K., Chuang SK. Factors associated with crestal bone gain on single-tooth locking-taper implants: the effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011. 26:1063–78.

17.Urdaneta RA., Leary J., Panetta KM., Chuang SK. The effect of opposing structures, natural teeth vs. implants on crestal bone levels surrounding single-tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014. 25:e179–88.

18.Ruttimann UE., Webber RL., Hazelrig JB. Fractal dimension from radiographs of peridental alveolar bone. A possible diagnostic indicator of osteoporosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992. 74:98–110.

19.Lynch JA., Hawkes DJ., Buckland-Wright JC. A robust and accurate method for calculating the fractal signature of texture in macroradiographs of osteoarthritic knees. Med Inform (Lond). 1991. 16:241–51.

20.Ulm C., Kneissel M., Schedle A., Solar P., Matejka M., Schneider B., Donath K. Characteristic features of trabecular bone in edentulous maxillae. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999. 10:459–67.

21.Geraets WG., van der Stelt PF. Fractal properties of bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000. 29:144–53.

22.Hong SW., Lee JI., Cho HW. Fractal Analysis of Peri-Implant Bone Mineral Density before and after Functional Loading on Implant. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 2011. 27:359–70.

Fig. 1.

Two periapical views: after implant placement, and after 10 weeks of functional loading.

Fig. 2.

Fractal image processing procedures (A. Region of interest: 48 × 426 pixel, B. Add Gaussian filter 35 to region of interest, C. Subtracted (B) from (A), D. Adjust brightness to (C), E. Binary image, F. Erosion image, G. Dilation image, H. Skeletonized image).

Fig. 3.

Box counting.

Fig. 4.

Comparison of mean fractal dimension value and standard deviation according to opposing antagonist.

Table 1.

Gender, age and location distribution of study subjects

		n	%
Gender	Female	23	45.1
Gender	Male	28	54.9
Age	< 50	11	21.6
Age	50 ≤	40	78.4
Location	Maxilla	21	41.2
Location	Mandible	30	58.8

Table 2.

Opposing antagonist distribution of study subjects

		n	%
Opposing antagonist	Natural tooth	20	39.2
	Implant	15	29.4
	Pontic	8	15.7
	Edentulous state	8	15.7

Table 3.

Fractal dimension comparison (one-way ANOVA) between groups according to opposing antagonist

Source	Sum of Square	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	.075	3	.025	3.188	0.032
Within Groups	.371	47	.008
Total	.446	50

TOOLS

Similar articles