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

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 13; no. 10; p. e0200596
• Main Authors: Nguyen, Kim-Cuong T., Pachêco-Pereira, Camila, Kaipatur, Neelambar R., Cheung, June, Major, Paul W., Le, Lawrence H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 03.10.2018; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Accuracy; Alveolar bone; Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging; Animals; Bacterial infections; Bias; Biology and Life Sciences; Biomedical engineering; Bone imaging; CAT scans; Comparative analysis; Computation; Computed tomography; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Defects; Dental enamel; Dentistry; Diagnostic systems; Engineering and Technology; Feasibility studies; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Infections; Ionizing radiation; Macrophages; Mandible - diagnostic imaging; Maxilla - diagnostic imaging; Medical imaging; Medicine and Health Sciences; Methods; Morphology; Periodontics; Physical Sciences; Quality assessment; Quality control; Radiation; Radiography; Reliability analysis; Reproducibility of Results; Research and Analysis Methods; Software; Systematic review; Teeth; Transplants & implants; Ultrasonic imaging; Ultrasonic testing; Ultrasonography; Ultrasound; Ultrasound imaging; Edmonton Alberta Canada; Canada
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200596

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. 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. 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%. 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.