Quantification of bone remodeling in the proximity of implants

Authors:
Hamid Sarve;Carina B. Johansson;Joakim Lindblad;Gunilla Borgefors;Victoria Franke Stenport
Affiliations:
Centre for Image Analysis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden;Department of Clinical Medicine, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden;Centre for Image Analysis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden;Centre for Image Analysis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden;Biomaterials Research Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
Venue:
CAIP'07 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Computer analysis of images and patterns
Year:
2007

Citing 3
Cited 4

Applied multivariate statistical analysis

Applied multivariate statistical analysis
Design of Perimeter Estimators for Digitized Planar Shapes

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
Pattern Classification (2nd Edition)

Pattern Classification (2nd Edition)

Improved Quantification of Bone Remodelling by Utilizing Fuzzy Based Segmentation

SCIA '09 Proceedings of the 16th Scandinavian Conference on Image Analysis
Quantification of Bone Remodeling in SRμCT Images of Implants

SCIA '09 Proceedings of the 16th Scandinavian Conference on Image Analysis
Pixel Coverage Segmentation for Improved Feature Estimation

ICIAP '09 Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing
Methods for visualization of bone tissue in the proximity of implants

ICCVG'10 Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Computer vision and graphics: Part II

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In histomorphometrical investigations of bone tissue modeling around screw-shaped implants, the manual measurements of bone area and bone-implant contact length around the implant are time consuming and subjective. In this paper we propose an automatic image analysis method for such measurements. We evaluate different discriminant analysis methods and compare the automatic method with the manual one. The results show that the principal difference between the two methods occurs in length estimation, whereas the area measurement does not differ significantly. A major factor behind the dissimilarities in the results is believed to be misclassification of staining artifacts by the automatic method.