Table 4 Studies using fractal analysis to evaluate implants and implant stability.
From: Decoding dental images: a comprehensive review of fractal analysis
Author(s) | Year | Aim/Objective | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
Wilding et al. [37] | 1995 | Monitor alveolar bone regeneration post-implant | FD increased near implant neck over time |
Grizon et al. [39] | 2002 | Study implant surface texture | FD useful to measure surface roughness |
Jung et al. [75] | 2005 | Study bone structure change after implants | FD changed post-implantation |
Veltri et al. [76] | 2007 | Relate FD to damping factor | No correlation found |
Yi et al. [77] | 2007 | Analyze anisotropy in bone | Directional FD indicated anisotropy and bone mechanical properties |
Lee et al. [78] | 2010 | Correlating FD with Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) | Positive correlation with ISQ |
Traini et al. [38] | 2010 | Evaluate vascularization via FA | 3 mm inter-implant distance better for vascular density |
Zeytinoglu et al. [79] | 2015 | Monitor peri-implant bone over time | FD decreased 6 months post-loading |
Mundim et al. [41] | 2016 | Use texture analysis for implant planning | FD useful for non-invasive implant planning |
Jodha et al. [80] | 2020 | Study FD on failed zirconia implants | FD consistent across fracture sites; useful for fracture toughness |
Lang et al. [42] | 2020 | Compare FD in healthy vs diseased implants | FD not valid to distinguish peri-implant health |
Kis et al. [43] | 2020 | Assess FD in short implant survival | FD predicted implant survival |
Mishra et al. [44] | 2022 | Review FD in implant stability | Most studies used IOPAR, CBCT, which yielded different results |
