Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos, Mourão, Carlos Fernando, Piattelli, Adriano, Romanos, Georgios E., Coelho Mendes, Bruno, Giubilato, Flavio, Montemezzi, Pietro, Júnior Conforte, Jadson, Griza, Geraldo Luiz, Bonardi, João Paulo, Hochuli-Vieira, Eduardo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9611878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36295525
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364
_version_ 1784819636252966912
author Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos
Mourão, Carlos Fernando
Piattelli, Adriano
Romanos, Georgios E.
Coelho Mendes, Bruno
Giubilato, Flavio
Montemezzi, Pietro
Júnior Conforte, Jadson
Griza, Geraldo Luiz
Bonardi, João Paulo
Hochuli-Vieira, Eduardo
author_facet Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos
Mourão, Carlos Fernando
Piattelli, Adriano
Romanos, Georgios E.
Coelho Mendes, Bruno
Giubilato, Flavio
Montemezzi, Pietro
Júnior Conforte, Jadson
Griza, Geraldo Luiz
Bonardi, João Paulo
Hochuli-Vieira, Eduardo
author_sort Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos
collection PubMed
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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9611878
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96118782022-10-28 Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos Mourão, Carlos Fernando Piattelli, Adriano Romanos, Georgios E. Coelho Mendes, Bruno Giubilato, Flavio Montemezzi, Pietro Júnior Conforte, Jadson Griza, Geraldo Luiz Bonardi, João Paulo Hochuli-Vieira, Eduardo Medicina (Kaunas) Article 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. MDPI 2022-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9611878/ /pubmed/36295525 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Pereira, Rodrigo dos Santos
Mourão, Carlos Fernando
Piattelli, Adriano
Romanos, Georgios E.
Coelho Mendes, Bruno
Giubilato, Flavio
Montemezzi, Pietro
Júnior Conforte, Jadson
Griza, Geraldo Luiz
Bonardi, João Paulo
Hochuli-Vieira, Eduardo
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?
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_short 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?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9611878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36295525
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364
work_keys_str_mv AT pereirarodrigodossantos whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT mouraocarlosfernando whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT piattelliadriano whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT romanosgeorgiose whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT coelhomendesbruno whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT giubilatoflavio whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT montemezzipietro whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT juniorconfortejadson whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT grizageraldoluiz whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT bonardijoaopaulo whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples
AT hochulivieiraeduardo whichhistometricanalysisapproachismorereliableforassessinghistologicalbonetissuesamples