Non-invasive evaluation of facial crestal bone with ultrasonography

Abstract

PurposeFacial crestal bone level and dimension determine function and esthetics of dentition and dental implants. We have previously demonstrated that ultrasound can identify bony and soft tissue structures in the oral cavity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of using ultrasound to measure facial crestal bone level and thickness.Materials and methodsA commercially available medical ultrasound scanner, paired with a 14 MHz imaging probe was used to scan dental and periodontal tissues at the mid-facial site of each tooth on 6 fresh cadavers. The alveolar crest level in relation to the cemento-enamel junction and its thickness on ultrasound images were measured and compared to those on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and/or direct measurements on a total of 144 teeth.ResultsThe mean crestal bone level measured by means of ultrasound, CBCT and direct measures was 2.66 ± 0.86 mm, 2.51 ± 0.82 mm, and 2.71 ± 1.04 mm, respectively. The mean crestal bone thickness was 0.71 ± 0.44 mm and 0.74 ± 0.34 mm, measured by means of ultrasound and CBCT, respectively. The correlations of the ultrasound readings to the other two methods were between 0.78 and 0.88. The mean absolute differences in crestal bone height and thickness between ultrasound and CBCT were 0.09 mm (-1.20 to 1.00 mm, p = 0.06) and 0.03 mm (-0.48 to 0.54 mm, p = 0.03), respectively.ConclusionUltrasound was as accurate in determining alveolar bone level and its thickness as CBCT and direct measurements. Clinical trials will be required to further validate this non-ionizing and non-invasive method for determining facial crestal bone position and dimension.

Ultrasonography for noninvasive and real‐time evaluation of peri‐implant tissue dimensions

“…A recent proof‐of‐principle study (Chan, Wang, Fowlkes, Giannobile, & Kripfgans, ) showed that ultrasound can image important oral anatomical structures. Later, another study from our group (Chan, Sinjab, et al., ) demonstrated accurate ultrasound readings of alveolar bone height and thickness on human cadaverous specimens. The mean absolute differences in ultrasound measures from direct measures and radiographic measures from CBCT images were within 0.1 mm.…”

“…The scanning set‐up and procedures were performed by two examiners (HC and OK) based on methods previously described (Chan, Sinjab, et al., ; Chan, Wang, et al., ). A built‐in function of spatial compounding was selected to obtain well‐resolved bone and implant edges (ZS3 Zonare/Mindray, USA).…”

Ultrasonographic characterization of lingual structures pertinent to oral, periodontal, and implant surgery

“…The ultrasound equipment setups and the scanning procedures were performed by two experienced investigators (HC and OK) (Chan, Sinjab, et al, ; Chan, Wang, et al, ). Three distinct sites, the premolar, molar, and retromolar sites, were selected for imaging (Figure ).…”

“…In medicine, the use of non‐ionizing ultrasound has been established and advocated for many years (Bhaskar, Chan, MacEachern, & Kripfgans, ; Hoskins & Kenwright, ; Moskalik et al, ; Oelze & Mamou, ). In dentistry, its advantage for providing low‐cost real‐time cross‐sectional images can be quite useful as it relates to providing optimal soft tissue contrast of pertinent anatomical structures and the peri‐implant tissues (Bhaskar et al, ; Chan, Sinjab, et al, ; Chan et al, ). Additionally, ultrasound has been validated for measuring tissue thickness in different locations of the oral cavity (Chan, Sinjab, et al, ; Chan, Wang, Fowlkes, Giannobile, & Kripfgans, ).…”

“…In dentistry, its advantage for providing low‐cost real‐time cross‐sectional images can be quite useful as it relates to providing optimal soft tissue contrast of pertinent anatomical structures and the peri‐implant tissues (Bhaskar et al, ; Chan, Sinjab, et al, ; Chan et al, ). Additionally, ultrasound has been validated for measuring tissue thickness in different locations of the oral cavity (Chan, Sinjab, et al, ; Chan, Wang, Fowlkes, Giannobile, & Kripfgans, ). A recent study from our group applied and validated the use of ultrasound for accurate assessment of peri‐implant tissues on human cadavers in comparison with direct visual and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) (Chan et al, ).…”