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.
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