Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/247793 |
Resumo: | This study aims to evaluate the grid of Merz and ImageJ methods for histometric quantification, verifying which is more reliable and defining which is most suitable based on the time required to perform. Thirty histological samples of maxillary sinuses grafted with xenografts were evaluated using an optical light microscope attached to an image capture camera and connected to a microcomputer. The images were digitalized and recorded as a TIFF image, and the new bone formation was evaluated using the grid of Merz and ImageJ. The Bland–Altman analysis was used to identify the agreement between the methods and determine suitable future research options. The timing of the quantification was also performed to identify a possible advantage. The mean value for the quantification analysis timing for the grid of Merz was 194.9 ± 72.0 s and for ImageJ was 871.7 ± 264.4, with statistical significance between the groups (p = 0.0001). The Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated a concordance between the methods, due to the bias being next to the maximum concordance (−1.25) in addition to the graphic showing the scattering points next to the mean of differences and inside of limits of agreement. Thus, it was demonstrated that the grid of Merz presents reliable outcomes and advantages over the ImageJ methodology regarding the time spent to contour the areas of interest. |
id |
UNSP_528a478f97dc752166f39baab8b8afb2 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/247793 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?Bland–Altman analysishistological measurementhistomorphometric analysisThis study aims to evaluate the grid of Merz and ImageJ methods for histometric quantification, verifying which is more reliable and defining which is most suitable based on the time required to perform. Thirty histological samples of maxillary sinuses grafted with xenografts were evaluated using an optical light microscope attached to an image capture camera and connected to a microcomputer. The images were digitalized and recorded as a TIFF image, and the new bone formation was evaluated using the grid of Merz and ImageJ. The Bland–Altman analysis was used to identify the agreement between the methods and determine suitable future research options. The timing of the quantification was also performed to identify a possible advantage. The mean value for the quantification analysis timing for the grid of Merz was 194.9 ± 72.0 s and for ImageJ was 871.7 ± 264.4, with statistical significance between the groups (p = 0.0001). The Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated a concordance between the methods, due to the bias being next to the maximum concordance (−1.25) in addition to the graphic showing the scattering points next to the mean of differences and inside of limits of agreement. Thus, it was demonstrated that the grid of Merz presents reliable outcomes and advantages over the ImageJ methodology regarding the time spent to contour the areas of interest.Department of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery University of Grande Rio-UNIGRANRIODepartment of Periodontology Dental Research Administration Tufts University School of Dental MedicineDepartment of Medical Oral and Biotechnological Sciences University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-PescaraSchool of Dental Medicine Stony Brook UniversityDepartment of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Aracatuba School of Dentistry Sao Paulo State UniversityClinical Research Laboratory in Dentistry Federal Fluminense UniversityDepartment of Dentistry San Raffaele HospitalDepartment of Diagnostic and Surgery Aracatuba School of Dentistry Sao Paulo State UniversityDepartment of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Aracatuba School of Dentistry Sao Paulo State UniversityDepartment of Diagnostic and Surgery Aracatuba School of Dentistry Sao Paulo State UniversityUniversity of Grande Rio-UNIGRANRIOTufts University School of Dental MedicineUniversity “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-PescaraStony Brook UniversityUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Federal Fluminense UniversitySan Raffaele HospitalPereira, Rodrigo dos SantosMourão, Carlos FernandoPiattelli, AdrianoRomanos, Georgios E.Coelho Mendes, Bruno [UNESP]Giubilato, Flavio [UNESP]Montemezzi, PietroJúnior Conforte, Jadson [UNESP]Griza, Geraldo Luiz [UNESP]Bonardi, João Paulo [UNESP]Hochuli-Vieira, Eduardo [UNESP]2023-07-29T13:25:58Z2023-07-29T13:25:58Z2022-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364Medicina (Lithuania), v. 58, n. 10, 2022.1648-91441010-660Xhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/24779310.3390/medicina581013642-s2.0-85140586173Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengMedicina (Lithuania)info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-09-19T13:30:35Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/247793Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462024-09-19T13:30:35Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? |
title |
Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? |
spellingShingle |
Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos Bland–Altman analysis histological measurement histomorphometric analysis |
title_short |
Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? |
title_full |
Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? |
title_fullStr |
Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? |
title_sort |
Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? |
author |
Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos |
author_facet |
Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos Mourão, Carlos Fernando Piattelli, Adriano Romanos, Georgios E. Coelho Mendes, Bruno [UNESP] Giubilato, Flavio [UNESP] Montemezzi, Pietro Júnior Conforte, Jadson [UNESP] Griza, Geraldo Luiz [UNESP] Bonardi, João Paulo [UNESP] Hochuli-Vieira, Eduardo [UNESP] |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Mourão, Carlos Fernando Piattelli, Adriano Romanos, Georgios E. Coelho Mendes, Bruno [UNESP] Giubilato, Flavio [UNESP] Montemezzi, Pietro Júnior Conforte, Jadson [UNESP] Griza, Geraldo Luiz [UNESP] Bonardi, João Paulo [UNESP] Hochuli-Vieira, Eduardo [UNESP] |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
University of Grande Rio-UNIGRANRIO Tufts University School of Dental Medicine University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara Stony Brook University Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Federal Fluminense University San Raffaele Hospital |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos Mourão, Carlos Fernando Piattelli, Adriano Romanos, Georgios E. Coelho Mendes, Bruno [UNESP] Giubilato, Flavio [UNESP] Montemezzi, Pietro Júnior Conforte, Jadson [UNESP] Griza, Geraldo Luiz [UNESP] Bonardi, João Paulo [UNESP] Hochuli-Vieira, Eduardo [UNESP] |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Bland–Altman analysis histological measurement histomorphometric analysis |
topic |
Bland–Altman analysis histological measurement histomorphometric analysis |
description |
This study aims to evaluate the grid of Merz and ImageJ methods for histometric quantification, verifying which is more reliable and defining which is most suitable based on the time required to perform. Thirty histological samples of maxillary sinuses grafted with xenografts were evaluated using an optical light microscope attached to an image capture camera and connected to a microcomputer. The images were digitalized and recorded as a TIFF image, and the new bone formation was evaluated using the grid of Merz and ImageJ. The Bland–Altman analysis was used to identify the agreement between the methods and determine suitable future research options. The timing of the quantification was also performed to identify a possible advantage. The mean value for the quantification analysis timing for the grid of Merz was 194.9 ± 72.0 s and for ImageJ was 871.7 ± 264.4, with statistical significance between the groups (p = 0.0001). The Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated a concordance between the methods, due to the bias being next to the maximum concordance (−1.25) in addition to the graphic showing the scattering points next to the mean of differences and inside of limits of agreement. Thus, it was demonstrated that the grid of Merz presents reliable outcomes and advantages over the ImageJ methodology regarding the time spent to contour the areas of interest. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-10-01 2023-07-29T13:25:58Z 2023-07-29T13:25:58Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 Medicina (Lithuania), v. 58, n. 10, 2022. 1648-9144 1010-660X http://hdl.handle.net/11449/247793 10.3390/medicina58101364 2-s2.0-85140586173 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/247793 |
identifier_str_mv |
Medicina (Lithuania), v. 58, n. 10, 2022. 1648-9144 1010-660X 10.3390/medicina58101364 2-s2.0-85140586173 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Medicina (Lithuania) |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scopus reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repositoriounesp@unesp.br |
_version_ |
1813546460289957888 |