Ultrasound Imaging of the Periodontium Complex: A Reliability Study

Overview

Journal Int J Dent

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Feb 27

PMID 36845629

Authors

Carlos Alberto Figueredo

Lawrence H Le

Kim Cuong Nguyen

Thanh-Giang La

Edmond H M Lou

Neelambar R Kaipatur

Hollis Lai

Monica P Gibson

Carlos Flores-Mir

Paul W Major

Fabiana T Almeida

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Ultrasonography is a noninvasive, low-cost diagnostic tool widely used in medicine. Recent studies have demonstrated that ultrasound imaging might have the potential to be used intraorally to assess periodontal biomarkers.

Objectives: To evaluate the reliability of interlandmark distance measurements on intraoral ultrasound images of the periodontal tissues.

Materials And Methods: Sixty-four patients from the graduate periodontics ( = 33) and orthodontics ( = 31) clinics were recruited. A 20 MHz handheld intraoral ultrasound transducer was used to scan maxillary and mandibular incisors, canines, and premolars. Distances between the alveolar bone crest and cementoenamel junction (ABC-CEJ), gingival thickness (GT), and alveolar bone thickness (ABT) were measured by 3 raters. The intercorrelation coefficient (ICC) and mean absolute deviation (MAD) were calculated among and between the raters. Raters also scored images according to quality.

Results: The ICC scores for intrarater reliability were 0.940 (0.932-0.947), 0.953 (0.945-0.961), and 0.859 (0.841-0.876) for ABC-CEJ, GT, and ABT, respectively. The intrarater MAD values were 0.023 (±0.019) mm, 0.014 (±0.005) mm, and 0.005 (±0.003) mm, respectively. The ICC scores for interrater reliability were 0.872 (95% CI: 0.836-0.901), 0.958 (95% CI: 0.946-0.968), and 0.836 (95% CI: 0.789-0.873) for ABC-CEJ, GT, and ABT, respectively. The interrater MAD values were 0.063 (±0.029) mm, 0.023 (±0.018) mm, and 0.027 (±0.012) mm, respectively.

Conclusions: The present study showed the high reliability of ultrasound in both intrarater and interrater assessments. Results suggest there might be a potential use of intraoral ultrasound to assess periodontium.

Citing Articles

Machine learning for automated identification of anatomical landmarks in ultrasound periodontal imaging.

Qi B, Sasi L, Khan S, Luo J, Chen C, Rahmani K Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2025; 54(3):210-221.

PMID: 39775796 PMC: 11879227. DOI: 10.1093/dmfr/twaf001.

Retrospective data analysis of referral letters for orofacial vascular anomalies to a tertiary center.

Abidin Z, Bahadun J Arch Craniofac Surg. 2025; 25(6):270-278.

PMID: 39757821 PMC: 11704714. DOI: 10.7181/acfs.2024.00437.

Difference in Buccal Gingival Thickness between the Mandible and Maxilla in the Aesthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Schwarz L, Andrukhov O, Rausch M, Rausch-Fan X, Jonke E J Clin Med. 2024; 13(6).

PMID: 38542013 PMC: 10971348. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13061789.

References

Nguyen K, Le L, Tran T, Sacchi M, Lou E . Excitation of ultrasonic Lamb waves using a phased array system with two array probes: phantom and in vitro bone studies. Ultrasonics. 2013; 54(5):1178-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultras.2013.08.004. View

Fu J, Lee A, Wang H . Influence of tissue biotype on implant esthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(3):499-508. View

Eke P, Dye B, Wei L, Thornton-Evans G, Genco R . Prevalence of periodontitis in adults in the United States: 2009 and 2010. J Dent Res. 2012; 91(10):914-20. DOI: 10.1177/0022034512457373. View

Paterno Holtzman L, Blasi G, Rivera E, Herrero F, Downton K, Oates T . Gingival Thickness and Outcome of Periodontal Plastic Surgery Procedures: A Meta-regression Analysis. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2020; 6(3):295-310. DOI: 10.1177/2380084420942171. View

Preshaw P, Kupp L, Hefti A, Mariotti A . Measurement of clinical attachment levels using a constant-force periodontal probe modified to detect the cemento-enamel junction. J Clin Periodontol. 1999; 26(7):434-40. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.1999.260704.x. View

Carovac A, Smajlovic F, Junuzovic D . Application of ultrasound in medicine. Acta Inform Med. 2013; 19(3):168-71. PMC: 3564184. DOI: 10.5455/aim.2011.19.168-171. View

Pihlstrom B . Measurement of Attachment Level in Clinical Trials: Probing Methods. J Periodontol. 2018; 63 Suppl 12S:1072-1077. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1992.63.12s.1072. View

Xiang X, Sowa M, Iacopino A, Maev R, Hewko M, Man A . An update on novel non-invasive approaches for periodontal diagnosis. J Periodontol. 2010; 81(2):186-98. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.090419. View

Timock A, Cook V, McDonald T, Leo M, Crowe J, Benninger B . Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140(5):734-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.021. View

10.

Lost C . Depth of alveolar bone dehiscences in relation to gingival recessions. J Clin Periodontol. 1984; 11(9):583-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1984.tb00911.x. View

11.

Evangelista K, Vasconcelos K, Bumann A, Hirsch E, Nitka M, Silva M . Dehiscence and fenestration in patients with Class I and Class II Division 1 malocclusion assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138(2):133.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.021. View

12.

Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A . Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol. 2014; 6(10):794-807. PMC: 4209425. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i10.794. View

13.

Jeffcoat M . Radiographic methods for the detection of progressive alveolar bone loss. J Periodontol. 1992; 63(4 Suppl):367-72. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1992.63.4s.367. View

14.

Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Majzoub J, Chan H, Wang H, Kripfgans O . Ultrasonographic Tissue Perfusion in Peri-implant Health and Disease. J Dent Res. 2021; 101(3):278-285. PMC: 8982012. DOI: 10.1177/00220345211035684. View

15.

Palou M, McQuade M, Rossmann J . The use of ultrasound for the determination of periodontal bone morphology. J Periodontol. 1987; 58(4):262-5. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1987.58.4.262. View

16.

Posadzy M, Desimpel J, Vanhoenacker F . Cone beam CT of the musculoskeletal system: clinical applications. Insights Imaging. 2018; 9(1):35-45. PMC: 5825310. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-017-0582-1. View

17.

Ghorayeb S, Bertoncini C, Hinders M . Ultrasonography in dentistry. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008; 55(6):1256-66. DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2008.788. View

18.

Tonetti M, Greenwell H, Kornman K . Staging and grading of periodontitis: Framework and proposal of a new classification and case definition. J Periodontol. 2018; 89 Suppl 1:S159-S172. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0006. View

19.

Alkan O, Kaya Y, Tunca M, Keskin S . Changes in the gingival thickness and keratinized gingival width of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2021; 91(4):459-467. PMC: 8259745. DOI: 10.2319/092620-820.1. View

20.

Majzoub J, Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Salami A, Inglehart M, Kripfgans O . Agreement in measurements of ultrasonography-derived periodontal diagnostic parameters among multiple raters: A diagnostic accuracy study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2022; 134(3):375-385. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2022.03.010. View