Comparative assessment of marginal alveolar bone using ultrasonography and cone-beam computed tomography.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Sefa Aydindogan, Hsun-Liang Chan, Oliver D Kripfgans, Yunus Emre Balaban, Muslu Kazım Körez, Elif Mutafcılar Velioğlu, Kaan Orhan, Sema S Hakki
{"title":"Comparative assessment of marginal alveolar bone using ultrasonography and cone-beam computed tomography.","authors":"Sefa Aydindogan, Hsun-Liang Chan, Oliver D Kripfgans, Yunus Emre Balaban, Muslu Kazım Körez, Elif Mutafcılar Velioğlu, Kaan Orhan, Sema S Hakki","doi":"10.1093/dmfr/twaf080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare crestal facial bone measurements obtained from ultrasonography (USG) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 200 teeth from 15 systemically healthy individuals were included. Teeth were categorized as maxillary anterior (n = 50), maxillary posterior (n = 50), mandibular anterior (n = 50), and mandibular posterior (n = 50). Marginal bone level (MBL) and facial bone thickness at 1 mm (MBT-1), 2 mm (MBT-2), and 3 mm (MBT-3) apical to the bone crest were measured using both USG and CBCT. USG imaging utilized an 18 MHz transducer in B-mode, with standardized settings. Measurements were repeated twice by 2 independent examiners to assess intra- and inter-observer reliability. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots were used for statistical comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICCs between examiners ranged from 0.812 to 0.980. MBL, MBT-1, and MBT-2 measurements between ultrasound and CBCT readings showed excellent agreement (ICCs > 0.75). The agreement for MBT-3 in mandibular anterior was fair (ICC: 0.528). Overall, mean difference between the 2 methods for MBL was 0.06 mm and for MBT-1 was 0.018 mm, without systematic bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ultrasound can be a valuable and reproducible tool for MBL and MBT-1 measurements, and it can serve as an alternative to CBCT. Despite reasonable agreement in MBT-2 and MBT-3, potential variability should be considered.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>While widely used for soft tissue measurements, USG has limited application in marginal alveolar bone assessment in living humans. This study demonstrates the potential use of USG in the evaluation of facial marginal alveolar bone in different regions of the oral cavity.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":"217-227"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twaf080","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare crestal facial bone measurements obtained from ultrasonography (USG) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods: A total of 200 teeth from 15 systemically healthy individuals were included. Teeth were categorized as maxillary anterior (n = 50), maxillary posterior (n = 50), mandibular anterior (n = 50), and mandibular posterior (n = 50). Marginal bone level (MBL) and facial bone thickness at 1 mm (MBT-1), 2 mm (MBT-2), and 3 mm (MBT-3) apical to the bone crest were measured using both USG and CBCT. USG imaging utilized an 18 MHz transducer in B-mode, with standardized settings. Measurements were repeated twice by 2 independent examiners to assess intra- and inter-observer reliability. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots were used for statistical comparisons.

Results: The ICCs between examiners ranged from 0.812 to 0.980. MBL, MBT-1, and MBT-2 measurements between ultrasound and CBCT readings showed excellent agreement (ICCs > 0.75). The agreement for MBT-3 in mandibular anterior was fair (ICC: 0.528). Overall, mean difference between the 2 methods for MBL was 0.06 mm and for MBT-1 was 0.018 mm, without systematic bias.

Conclusions: Ultrasound can be a valuable and reproducible tool for MBL and MBT-1 measurements, and it can serve as an alternative to CBCT. Despite reasonable agreement in MBT-2 and MBT-3, potential variability should be considered.

Advances in knowledge: While widely used for soft tissue measurements, USG has limited application in marginal alveolar bone assessment in living humans. This study demonstrates the potential use of USG in the evaluation of facial marginal alveolar bone in different regions of the oral cavity.

超声与锥束计算机断层扫描对边缘牙槽骨的比较评价。
目的:本研究旨在比较超声(USG)和锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)获得的嵴面骨测量结果。方法:选取15例全身健康者的200颗牙齿。牙齿分为上颌前牙(n = 50)、上颌后牙(n = 50)、下颌前牙(n = 50)和下颌后牙(n = 50)。使用USG和CBCT测量边缘骨水平(MBL)和面骨厚度,分别为1 mm (MBT-1)、2 mm (MBT-2)和3 mm (MBT-3)。USG成像在b模式下使用18mhz换能器,具有标准化设置。测量由两名独立的审查员重复两次,以评估观察者内部和观察者之间的可靠性。采用类间相关系数(ICCs)和Bland-Altman图进行统计比较。结果:各检查者的ICCs范围为0.812 ~ 0.980。MBL、MBT-1和MBT-2在超声和CBCT读数之间显示出极好的一致性(ICCs>0.75)。MBT-3在下颌前牙的一致性是公平的(ICC:0.528)。总体而言,两种方法对MBL的平均差异为0.06 mm,对MBT-1的平均差异为0.018 mm,无系统偏差。结论:超声对MBL和MBT-1的测量是一种有价值的、可重复的工具,可以作为CBCT的替代方法。尽管MBT-2和MBT-3有合理的一致性,但应考虑潜在的变异性。知识进展:虽然超声广泛用于软组织测量,但在活人边缘牙槽骨评估中的应用有限。本研究证明了超声在口腔不同区域的面缘牙槽骨评价中的潜在应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
65
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging. Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology. The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919 - Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks - Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks - Open access option - ISSN: 0250-832X - eISSN: 1476-542X
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书