Comparison of ultrasonography and cone-beam computed tomography accuracy in measuring the soft tissue thickness of maxillary and mandibular gingiva in a sheep model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/AMB-2023-0042Keywords:
ultrasonography, cone-beam computed tomography, soft tissue, measurement accuracyAbstract
Background: To date, few studies have compared the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and ultrasonography in measuring the soft tissue thickness of the maxillary and mandibular gingiva. Aims: To compare the accuracy of ultrasonography and CBCT in measuring the soft tissue thickness of the maxillary and mandibular gingiva in a sheep model. Materials and Methods: In this study, 38 diff erent landmarks (26 points from the upper jaw and 12 points from the lower jaw) were evaluated. The gingival soft tissue thickness was measured using a digital caliper, ultrasonography, and standard and high-resolution CBCTs. The measurements were fi nally compared with each other.
Results: Regarding the thicknesses < 2 mm, no signifi cant diff erence was seen between the measurements of the digital caliper and ultrasonography (mean diff erence < 0.1 mm, p = 0.140). Conversely, data analysis indicated signifi cant diff erences between CBCTs measurements and digital caliper and ultrasonography measurements. Regarding thicknesses > 2 mm, digital caliper measurement was not signifi cantly diff erent from ultrasonography and high-resolution CBCT measurements (mean diff erences < 0.1 mm) but differed from the standard CBCT measurement. Also, a signifi cant diff erence was observed between ultrasonography and standard CBCT measurements but not between ultrasonography and high-resolution CBCT (mean diff erences < 0.1 mm). Finally, mean diff erences between standard and high-resolution CBCT measurements were statistically signifi cant.
Conclusion: According to the results, ultrasonography can be a reliable option for measuring gingival soft tissues regardless of their thickness, while CBCT may be more suitable for thicker gingival tissues. Clinicians should carefully consider the measurement accuracy of diff erent imaging methods when planning dental procedures.
References
Nisanci Yilmaz MN, Koseoglu Secgin C, Ozemre MO, et al. Assessment of gingival thickness in the maxillary anterior region using diff erent techniques. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(11):6531-8.
Wang J, Cha S, Zhao Q, et al. Methods to assess tooth gingival thickness and diagnose gingival phenotypes: A systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022;34(4):620-32.
Abesi F, Ehsani M. Radiographic evaluation of maxillary anterior teeth canal curvatures in an Iranian population. Iran Endod J. 2011;6(1):25-8.
Assiri H, Dawasaz AA, Alahmari A, et al. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in periodontal diseases: a Systematic review based on the effi cacy model. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):191.
Abesi F, Motaharinia S, Moudi E, et al. Prevalence and anatomical variations of maxillary sinus septa: A conebeam computed tomography analysis. J Clin Exp Dent. 2022;14(9):e689-e93.
Cha S, Lee SM, Zhang C, et al. Correlation between gingival phenotype in the aesthetic zone and craniofacial profi le – a CBCT-based study. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(3):1363-74.
Moudi E, Haghanifar S, Johari M, et al. Evaluation of the cone-beam computed tomography accuracy in measuring soft tissue thickness in diff erent areas of the jaws. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2019;23(4):334-8.
Lau SL, Chow LK, Leung YY. A Non-Invasive and Accurate Measurement of Gingival Thickness Using Cone-Beam Computerized Imaging for the Assessment of Planning Immediate Implant in the Esthetic Zone-A Pig Jaw Model. Implant Dent. 2016;25(5):619-23.
Evirgen Ş, Kamburoğlu K. Review on the applications of ultrasonography in dentomaxillofacial region. World J Radiol. 2016;8(1):50-8.
Reda R, Zanza A, Cicconetti A, et al. Ultrasound Imaging in Dentistry: A Literature Overview. J Imaging. 2021;7(11).
Ko TJ, Byrd KM, Kim SA. The Chairside Periodontal Diagnostic Toolkit: Past, Present, and Future. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(6):932.
Chifor R, Badea AF, Chifor I, et al. Periodontal evaluation using a non-invasive imaging method (ultrasonography). Med Pharm Rep. 2019;92(Suppl No 3):S20-s32.
Elbarbary M, Sgro A, Khazaei S, et al. The applications of ultrasound, and ultrasonography in dentistry: a scoping review of the literature. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(3):2299-316.
Kheirollahi H, Rahmati S, Abesi F, editors. A novel methodology in design and fabrication of lingual orthodontic appliance based on rapid prototyping technologies. Innovative Developments in Design and Manufacturing – Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping; 2010.
Fourie Z, Damstra J, Gerrits PO, et al. Accuracy and reliability of facial soft tissue depth measurements using cone beam computer tomography. Forensic Sci Int. 2010;199(1-3):9-14.
Weiss R, Read-Fuller A. Cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery: an evidence-based review. Dentistry journal. 2019;7(2):52.
Abesi F, Haghanifar S, Khafri S, et al. The evaluation of the anatomical variations of osteomeatal complex in cone beam computed tomography images. Journal of Babol University of Medical Sciences. 2018;20(4):30-4.
De Freitas Silva BS, Silva JK, Silva LR, et al. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in determining gingival thickness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(5):1801-14.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are free to share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format under these terms.
Journal Acta Medica Bulgarica 
