Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: 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]
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