IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0200596.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of ultrasound imaging and cone-beam computed tomography for examination of the alveolar bone level: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Kim-Cuong T Nguyen
  • Camila Pachêco-Pereira
  • Neelambar R Kaipatur
  • June Cheung
  • Paul W Major
  • Lawrence H Le

Abstract

Background and objective: The current methods to image alveolar bone in humans include intraoral 2D radiography and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). However, these methods expose the subject to ionizing radiation. Therefore, ultrasound imaging has been investigated as an alternative technique, as it is both non-invasive and free from ionizing radiation. In order to assess the validity and reliability of ultrasonography in visualizing alveolar bone, a systematic review was conducted comparing ultrasound imaging to CBCT for examination of the alveolar bone level. Study design: Seven databases were searched. Studies addressing examination of alveolar bone level via CBCT and ultrasound were selected. Risk of bias under Cochrane guidelines was used as a methodological quality assessment tool. Results: All the four included studies were ex vivo studies that used porcine or human cadaver samples. The alveolar bone level was measured by the distance from the alveolar bone crest to certain landmarks such as cemento-enamel junction or gingival margin. The risk of bias was found as low. The mean difference between ultrasound and CBCT measurements ranged from 0.07 mm to 0.68 mm, equivalent to 1.6% - 8.8%. Conclusions: There is currently preliminary evidence to support the use of ultrasonography as compared to CBCT for the examination of alveolar bone level. Further studies comparing ultrasound to gold standard methods would be necessary to help validate the accuracy of ultrasonography as a diagnostic technique in periodontal imaging.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim-Cuong T Nguyen & Camila Pachêco-Pereira & Neelambar R Kaipatur & June Cheung & Paul W Major & Lawrence H Le, 2018. "Comparison of ultrasound imaging and cone-beam computed tomography for examination of the alveolar bone level: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200596
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200596
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200596
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200596&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0200596?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200596. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.