Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 28;32(6):1041–1052. doi: 10.1007/s00198-021-05852-3

Table 2.

Main characteristics and findings of the included articles for the review

Method of FD calculation Articles % (n)
  Box counting 73.68 (14)
  Differential box counting 10.52 (2)
  Power spectra 5.26 (1)
  Others 10.52 (2)
Images processing method Articles % (n)
  White and Rudolph 73.68 (14)
  Others 26.31 (5)
ROI shape Articles % (n)
  Rectangular 33.33 (7)
  Square 47.61 (10)
  Irregular 9.52 (2)
  Not specified 9.52 (2)
Imaging techniques Articles % (n)
  PR 68.18 (15)
  PA 18.18 (4)
  CBCT 13.63 (3)
Main results on FD Measurements % (n)
  Significant difference between HC and OP 51.35 (19)
  No difference between HC and OP 48.64 (18)
  Accuracy higher than 80% 100 (2)
  Accuracy lower than 80% //
  Significant correlation between FD and BMD 50 (1)
  Absence of correlation between FD and BMD 50 (1)
Dental images FD values (min-max)
  PR

HC: 1.065–3.190

OP: 1.049–3.240

  PA

HC: 0.834–3.190

OP: 0.823–3.240

  CBCT

HC: 0.91–1.40

OP: 0.93–1.39

Abbreviations: CBCT cone beam computed tomography; FD fractal dimension; HC healthy control; OP osteoporotic patients; PR panoramic radiographs; PA periapical radiographs