Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 12 (2), e0171237
eCollection

Non-invasive Evaluation of Facial Crestal Bone With Ultrasonography

Affiliations

Non-invasive Evaluation of Facial Crestal Bone With Ultrasonography

Hsun-Liang Chan et al. PLoS One.

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
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
Fig 2. Correlations of bone level and thickness readings between 3 estimation methods.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Agreement of bone level and thickness readings between 3 estimation methods.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 4 PubMed Central articles

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 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    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 - DOI - PubMed
    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. - PubMed
    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 - DOI - PubMed
    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 - DOI - PubMed
Feedback