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...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira [verfasserIn] Carlos Fernando Mourão [verfasserIn] Adriano Piattelli [verfasserIn] Georgios E. Romanos [verfasserIn] Bruno Coelho Mendes [verfasserIn] Flavio Giubilato [verfasserIn] Pietro Montemezzi [verfasserIn] Jadson Júnior Conforte [verfasserIn] Geraldo Luiz Griza [verfasserIn] João Paulo Bonardi [verfasserIn] Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Bland–Altman analysis histomorphometric analysis histological measurement

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Medicina - MDPI AG, 2016, 58(2022), 10, p 1364
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:58 ; year:2022 ; number:10, p 1364

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/medicina58101364

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ027801772

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ027801772
003	DE-627
005	20240414174901.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/medicina58101364 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ027801772
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a R5-920
100	0		\|a Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a 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 (<i<p</i< = 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.
650		4	\|a Bland–Altman analysis
650		4	\|a histomorphometric analysis
650		4	\|a histological measurement
653		0	\|a Medicine (General)
700	0		\|a Carlos Fernando Mourão \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Adriano Piattelli \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Georgios E. Romanos \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Bruno Coelho Mendes \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Flavio Giubilato \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Pietro Montemezzi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Jadson Júnior Conforte \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Geraldo Luiz Griza \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a João Paulo Bonardi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Medicina \|d MDPI AG, 2016 \|g 58(2022), 10, p 1364 \|w (DE-627)354543296 \|w (DE-600)2088820-X \|x 16489144 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:58 \|g year:2022 \|g number:10, p 1364
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1364 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1010-660X \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1648-9144 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 58 \|j 2022 \|e 10, p 1364

Indexfelder

author_variant	r d s p rdsp c f m cfm a p ap g e r ger b c m bcm f g fg p m pm j j c jjc g l g glg j p b jpb e h v ehv
matchkey_str	article:16489144:2022----::hchsoercnlssprahsoeeibeoassigit
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	R
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.3390/medicina58101364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ027801772 (DE-599)DOAJ1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira verfasserin aut Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (<i<p</i< = 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. Bland–Altman analysis histomorphometric analysis histological measurement Medicine (General) Carlos Fernando Mourão verfasserin aut Adriano Piattelli verfasserin aut Georgios E. Romanos verfasserin aut Bruno Coelho Mendes verfasserin aut Flavio Giubilato verfasserin aut Pietro Montemezzi verfasserin aut Jadson Júnior Conforte verfasserin aut Geraldo Luiz Griza verfasserin aut João Paulo Bonardi verfasserin aut Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira verfasserin aut In Medicina MDPI AG, 2016 58(2022), 10, p 1364 (DE-627)354543296 (DE-600)2088820-X 16489144 nnns volume:58 year:2022 number:10, p 1364 https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1010-660X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1648-9144 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 58 2022 10, p 1364
spelling	10.3390/medicina58101364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ027801772 (DE-599)DOAJ1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira verfasserin aut Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (<i<p</i< = 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. Bland–Altman analysis histomorphometric analysis histological measurement Medicine (General) Carlos Fernando Mourão verfasserin aut Adriano Piattelli verfasserin aut Georgios E. Romanos verfasserin aut Bruno Coelho Mendes verfasserin aut Flavio Giubilato verfasserin aut Pietro Montemezzi verfasserin aut Jadson Júnior Conforte verfasserin aut Geraldo Luiz Griza verfasserin aut João Paulo Bonardi verfasserin aut Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira verfasserin aut In Medicina MDPI AG, 2016 58(2022), 10, p 1364 (DE-627)354543296 (DE-600)2088820-X 16489144 nnns volume:58 year:2022 number:10, p 1364 https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1010-660X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1648-9144 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 58 2022 10, p 1364
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/medicina58101364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ027801772 (DE-599)DOAJ1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira verfasserin aut Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (<i<p</i< = 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. Bland–Altman analysis histomorphometric analysis histological measurement Medicine (General) Carlos Fernando Mourão verfasserin aut Adriano Piattelli verfasserin aut Georgios E. Romanos verfasserin aut Bruno Coelho Mendes verfasserin aut Flavio Giubilato verfasserin aut Pietro Montemezzi verfasserin aut Jadson Júnior Conforte verfasserin aut Geraldo Luiz Griza verfasserin aut João Paulo Bonardi verfasserin aut Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira verfasserin aut In Medicina MDPI AG, 2016 58(2022), 10, p 1364 (DE-627)354543296 (DE-600)2088820-X 16489144 nnns volume:58 year:2022 number:10, p 1364 https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1010-660X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1648-9144 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 58 2022 10, p 1364
allfieldsGer	10.3390/medicina58101364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ027801772 (DE-599)DOAJ1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira verfasserin aut Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (<i<p</i< = 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. Bland–Altman analysis histomorphometric analysis histological measurement Medicine (General) Carlos Fernando Mourão verfasserin aut Adriano Piattelli verfasserin aut Georgios E. Romanos verfasserin aut Bruno Coelho Mendes verfasserin aut Flavio Giubilato verfasserin aut Pietro Montemezzi verfasserin aut Jadson Júnior Conforte verfasserin aut Geraldo Luiz Griza verfasserin aut João Paulo Bonardi verfasserin aut Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira verfasserin aut In Medicina MDPI AG, 2016 58(2022), 10, p 1364 (DE-627)354543296 (DE-600)2088820-X 16489144 nnns volume:58 year:2022 number:10, p 1364 https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1010-660X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1648-9144 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 58 2022 10, p 1364
allfieldsSound	10.3390/medicina58101364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ027801772 (DE-599)DOAJ1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira verfasserin aut Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (<i<p</i< = 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. Bland–Altman analysis histomorphometric analysis histological measurement Medicine (General) Carlos Fernando Mourão verfasserin aut Adriano Piattelli verfasserin aut Georgios E. Romanos verfasserin aut Bruno Coelho Mendes verfasserin aut Flavio Giubilato verfasserin aut Pietro Montemezzi verfasserin aut Jadson Júnior Conforte verfasserin aut Geraldo Luiz Griza verfasserin aut João Paulo Bonardi verfasserin aut Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira verfasserin aut In Medicina MDPI AG, 2016 58(2022), 10, p 1364 (DE-627)354543296 (DE-600)2088820-X 16489144 nnns volume:58 year:2022 number:10, p 1364 https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1010-660X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1648-9144 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 58 2022 10, p 1364
language	English
source	In Medicina 58(2022), 10, p 1364 volume:58 year:2022 number:10, p 1364
sourceStr	In Medicina 58(2022), 10, p 1364 volume:58 year:2022 number:10, p 1364
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Bland–Altman analysis histomorphometric analysis histological measurement Medicine (General)
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Medicina
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira @@aut@@ Carlos Fernando Mourão @@aut@@ Adriano Piattelli @@aut@@ Georgios E. Romanos @@aut@@ Bruno Coelho Mendes @@aut@@ Flavio Giubilato @@aut@@ Pietro Montemezzi @@aut@@ Jadson Júnior Conforte @@aut@@ Geraldo Luiz Griza @@aut@@ João Paulo Bonardi @@aut@@ Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	354543296
id	DOAJ027801772
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ027801772</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414174901.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/medicina58101364</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ027801772</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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 (<i<p</i< = 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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bland–Altman analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">histomorphometric analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">histological measurement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carlos Fernando Mourão</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Adriano Piattelli</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Georgios E. Romanos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bruno Coelho Mendes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Flavio Giubilato</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pietro Montemezzi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jadson Júnior Conforte</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Geraldo Luiz Griza</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">João Paulo Bonardi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Medicina</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">58(2022), 10, p 1364</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)354543296</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2088820-X</subfield><subfield code="x">16489144</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:58</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:10, p 1364</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1364</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1010-660X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1648-9144</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">58</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">10, p 1364</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira
spellingShingle	Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira misc R5-920 misc Bland–Altman analysis misc histomorphometric analysis misc histological measurement misc Medicine (General) Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?
authorStr	Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)354543296
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	R5-920
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	16489144
topic_title	R5-920 Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples? Bland–Altman analysis histomorphometric analysis histological measurement
topic	misc R5-920 misc Bland–Altman analysis misc histomorphometric analysis misc histological measurement misc Medicine (General)
topic_unstemmed	misc R5-920 misc Bland–Altman analysis misc histomorphometric analysis misc histological measurement misc Medicine (General)
topic_browse	misc R5-920 misc Bland–Altman analysis misc histomorphometric analysis misc histological measurement misc Medicine (General)
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Medicina
hierarchy_parent_id	354543296
hierarchy_top_title	Medicina
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)354543296 (DE-600)2088820-X
title	Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ027801772 (DE-599)DOAJ1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b
title_full	Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?
author_sort	Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira
journal	Medicina
journalStr	Medicina
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira Carlos Fernando Mourão Adriano Piattelli Georgios E. Romanos Bruno Coelho Mendes Flavio Giubilato Pietro Montemezzi Jadson Júnior Conforte Geraldo Luiz Griza João Paulo Bonardi Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira
container_volume	58
class	R5-920
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira
doi_str_mv	10.3390/medicina58101364
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	which histometric analysis approach is more reliable for assessing histological bone tissue samples?
callnumber	R5-920
title_auth	Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?
abstract	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 (<i<p</i< = 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.
abstractGer	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 (<i<p</i< = 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.
abstract_unstemmed	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 (<i<p</i< = 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.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	10, p 1364
title_short	Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364 https://doaj.org/article/1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1364 https://doaj.org/toc/1010-660X https://doaj.org/toc/1648-9144
remote_bool	true
author2	Carlos Fernando Mourão Adriano Piattelli Georgios E. Romanos Bruno Coelho Mendes Flavio Giubilato Pietro Montemezzi Jadson Júnior Conforte Geraldo Luiz Griza João Paulo Bonardi Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira
author2Str	Carlos Fernando Mourão Adriano Piattelli Georgios E. Romanos Bruno Coelho Mendes Flavio Giubilato Pietro Montemezzi Jadson Júnior Conforte Geraldo Luiz Griza João Paulo Bonardi Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira
ppnlink	354543296
callnumber-subject	R - General Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/medicina58101364
callnumber-a	R5-920
up_date	2024-07-03T14:06:33.907Z
_version_	1803567071406063616
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ027801772</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414174901.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/medicina58101364</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ027801772</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Which Histometric Analysis Approach Is More Reliable for Assessing Histological Bone Tissue Samples?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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 (<i<p</i< = 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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bland–Altman analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">histomorphometric analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">histological measurement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carlos Fernando Mourão</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Adriano Piattelli</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Georgios E. Romanos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bruno Coelho Mendes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Flavio Giubilato</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pietro Montemezzi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jadson Júnior Conforte</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Geraldo Luiz Griza</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">João Paulo Bonardi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Eduardo Hochuli-Vieira</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Medicina</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">58(2022), 10, p 1364</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)354543296</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2088820-X</subfield><subfield code="x">16489144</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:58</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:10, p 1364</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58101364</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1803363fc56a46838a060e1b0d6aa54b</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1364</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1010-660X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1648-9144</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">58</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">10, p 1364</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4008226

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

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

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?