Non-invasive evaluation of facial crestal bone with ultrasonography

Hsun-Liang Chan, Khaled Sinjab, Ming-Pang Chung, Yi-Chen Chiang, Hom-Lay Wang, William V Giannobile, Oliver D Kripfgans, Hsun-Liang Chan, Khaled Sinjab, Ming-Pang Chung, Yi-Chen Chiang, Hom-Lay Wang, William V Giannobile, Oliver D Kripfgans

Abstract

Purpose: Facial 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 methods: A 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.

Results: The 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.

Conclusion: Ultrasound 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.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Demonstrations of ultrasound images for…
Fig 1. Demonstrations of ultrasound images for different tooth types in relation to the ground sections of the respective teeth.
The two dashed lines represent the CEJ and alveolar bone crest level, respectively.
Fig 2. Correlations of bone level and…
Fig 2. Correlations of bone level and thickness readings between 3 estimation methods.
Fig 3. Agreement of bone level and…
Fig 3. Agreement of bone level and thickness readings between 3 estimation methods.

References

    1. Chan HL, Chun YH, MacEachern M, Oates TW. Does Gingival Recession Require Surgical Treatment? Dent Clin North Am. 2015. October;59(4):981–96. 10.1016/j.cden.2015.06.010
    1. Ferrus J, Cecchinato D, Pjetursson EB, Lang NP, Sanz M, Lindhe J. Factors influencing ridge alterations following immediate implant placement into extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010. January;21(1):22–9. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01825.x
    1. Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, Buser D. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall-a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011. April;31(2):125–31.
    1. Fu JH, Yeh CY, Chan HL, Tatarakis N, Leong DJ, Wang HL. Tissue biotype and its relation to the underlying bone morphology. Journal of periodontology. 2010. April;81(4):569–74. 10.1902/jop.2009.090591
    1. Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, Leo MC, Crowe J, Benninger BL, et al. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011. November;140(5):734–44. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.021
    1. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology. 1991. October;181(1):129–33. 10.1148/radiology.181.1.1887021
    1. Chandak R, Degwekar S, Bhowte RR, Motwani M, Banode P, Chandak M, et al. An evaluation of efficacy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of head and neck swellings. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011. May;40(4):213–21. 10.1259/dmfr/68658286
    1. Friedrich RE, Zustin J, Scheuer HA. Adenomatoid odontogenic tumour of the mandible. Anticancer Res. 2010. May;30(5):1787–92.
    1. Pallagatti S, Sheikh S, Puri N, Mittal A, Singh B. To evaluate the efficacy of ultrasonography compared to clinical diagnosis, radiography and histopathological findings in the diagnosis of maxillofacial swellings. Eur J Radiol. 2012. August;81(8):1821–7. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.065
    1. Wakasugi-Sato N, Kodama M, Matsuo K, Yamamoto N, Oda M, Ishikawa A, et al. Advanced clinical usefulness of ultrasonography for diseases in oral and maxillofacial regions. Int J Dent. 2010;2010:639382 10.1155/2010/639382
    1. Yamamoto N, Yamashita Y, Tanaka T, Ishikawa A, Kito S, Wakasugi-Sato N, et al. Diagnostic significance of characteristic findings on ultrasonography for the stitch abscess after surgery in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2011. March;47(3):163–9. 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.10.015
    1. Muller HP, Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Kononen E. Repeatability of ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Clinical oral investigations. 2007. December;11(4):439–42. 10.1007/s00784-007-0125-0
    1. Muller HP, Kononen E. Variance components of gingival thickness. Journal of periodontal research. 2005. June;40(3):239–44. 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2005.00798.x
    1. Chan HL, Wang HL, Fowlkes JB, Giannobile WV, Kripfgans OD. Non-ionizing real-time ultrasonography in implant and oral surgery: A feasibility study. Clinical oral implants research. 2016. March 19.
    1. Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of gingival thickness and bleeding to loss of probing attachment in shallow sites following nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Journal of clinical periodontology. 1986. August;13(7):654–7.
    1. Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. Journal of clinical periodontology. 1991. January;18(1):78–82.
    1. Chao YC, Chang PC, Fu JH, Wang HL, Chan HL. Surgical Site Assessment for Soft Tissue Management in Ridge Augmentation Procedures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2015. Sep-Oct;35(5):e75–83. 10.11607/prd.2097
    1. De Bruyckere T, Eghbali A, Younes F, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. Horizontal stability of connective tissue grafts at the buccal aspect of single implants: a 1-year prospective case series. J Clin Periodontol. 2015. September;42(9):876–82. 10.1111/jcpe.12448
    1. Fu JH, Lee A, Wang HL. Influence of tissue biotype on implant esthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011. May-Jun;26(3):499–508.
    1. Lin GH, Chan HL, Wang HL. Effects of currently available surgical and restorative interventions on reducing midfacial mucosal recession of immediately placed single-tooth implants: a systematic review. J Periodontol. 2014. January;85(1):92–102. 10.1902/jop.2013.130064
    1. De Rouck T, Eghbali R, Collys K, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva. J Clin Periodontol. 2009. May;36(5):428–33. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01398.x
    1. Kan JY, Morimoto T, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Smith DH. Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: visual versus direct measurement. The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. 2010. June;30(3):237–43.
    1. Zweers J, Thomas RZ, Slot DE, Weisgold AS, Van der Weijden FG. Characteristics of periodontal biotype, its dimensions, associations and prevalence: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2014. October;41(10):958–71. 10.1111/jcpe.12275
    1. Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J, Kerckaert I, Van Hoof T. Ultrasonic Assessment of Mucosal Thickness around Implants: Validity, Reproducibility, and Stability of Connective Tissue Grafts at the Buccal Aspect. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014. July 17.
    1. Vera C, De Kok IJ, Reinhold D, Limpiphipatanakorn P, Yap AK, Tyndall D, et al. Evaluation of buccal alveolar bone dimension of maxillary anterior and premolar teeth: a cone beam computed tomography investigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012. Nov-Dec;27(6):1514–9.
    1. Wang HM, Shen JW, Yu MF, Chen XY, Jiang QH, He FM. Analysis of facial bone wall dimensions and sagittal root position in the maxillary esthetic zone: a retrospective study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014. Sep-Oct;29(5):1123–9. 10.11607/jomi.3348
    1. Frost NA, Mealey BL, Jones AA, Huynh-Ba G. Periodontal Biotype: Gingival Thickness as It Relates to Probe Visibility and Buccal Plate Thickness. J Periodontol. 2015. October;86(10):1141–9. 10.1902/jop.2015.140394

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅