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
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: |
---|
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 |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.3390/medicina58101364 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ027801772 |
---|
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 |
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 |