Vaishnavi Bhaskar1, Hsun-Liang Chan2, Mark MacEachern3, Oliver D Kripfgans4,5. 1. 1 University of Michigan School of Dentistry , Ann Arbor, MI , USA. 2. 2 Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry , Ann Arbor, MI , USA. 3. 3 Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI , USA. 4. 4 Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering , Ann Arbor, MI , USA. 5. 5 Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical School , Ann Arbor, MI , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ultrasonography has shown promising diagnostic value in dental implant imaging research; however, exactly how ultrasound was used and at what stage of implant therapy it can be applied has not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, the aim of this review is to investigate potential indications of ultrasound use in the three implant treatment phases, namely planning, intraoperative and post-operative phase. METHODS: Eligible manuscripts were searched in major databases with a combination of keywords related to the use of ultrasound imaging in implant therapy. An initial search yielded 414 articles, after further review, 28 articles were finally included for this systematic review. RESULTS: Ultrasound was found valuable, though at various development stages, for evaluating (1) soft tissues, (2) hard tissues (3) vital structures and (4) implant stability. B-mode, the main function to image anatomical structures of interest, has been evaluated in pre-clinical and clinical studies. Quantitative ultrasound parameters, e.g. sound speed and amplitude, are being developed to evaluate implant-bone stability, mainly in simulation and pre-clinical studies. Ultrasound could be potentially useful in all three treatment phases. In the planning phase, ultrasound could evaluate vital structures, tissue biotype, ridge width/density, and cortical bone thickness. During surgery, it can provide feedback by identifying vital structures and bone boundary. At follow-up visits, it could evaluate marginal bone level and implant stability. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the current status of ultrasound imaging research for implant therapy would be extremely beneficial for accelerating translational research and its use in dental clinics.
OBJECTIVES: Ultrasonography has shown promising diagnostic value in dental implant imaging research; however, exactly how ultrasound was used and at what stage of implant therapy it can be applied has not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, the aim of this review is to investigate potential indications of ultrasound use in the three implant treatment phases, namely planning, intraoperative and post-operative phase. METHODS: Eligible manuscripts were searched in major databases with a combination of keywords related to the use of ultrasound imaging in implant therapy. An initial search yielded 414 articles, after further review, 28 articles were finally included for this systematic review. RESULTS: Ultrasound was found valuable, though at various development stages, for evaluating (1) soft tissues, (2) hard tissues (3) vital structures and (4) implant stability. B-mode, the main function to image anatomical structures of interest, has been evaluated in pre-clinical and clinical studies. Quantitative ultrasound parameters, e.g. sound speed and amplitude, are being developed to evaluate implant-bone stability, mainly in simulation and pre-clinical studies. Ultrasound could be potentially useful in all three treatment phases. In the planning phase, ultrasound could evaluate vital structures, tissue biotype, ridge width/density, and cortical bone thickness. During surgery, it can provide feedback by identifying vital structures and bone boundary. At follow-up visits, it could evaluate marginal bone level and implant stability. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the current status of ultrasound imaging research for implant therapy would be extremely beneficial for accelerating translational research and its use in dental clinics.
Authors: J Thomas Lambrecht; Andreas Filippi; André Rätzer Künzel; Harald J Schiel Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2003 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Dorothea C Dagassan-Berndt; Nicola U Zitzmann; Clemens Walter; Ralf K W Schulze Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Katharina Degen; Daniel Habor; Klaus Radermacher; Stefan Heger; Jaana-Sophia Kern; Stefan Wolfart; Juliana Marotti Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2016-03-27 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Melissa L Rethlefsen; Shona Kirtley; Siw Waffenschmidt; Ana Patricia Ayala; David Moher; Matthew J Page; Jonathan B Koffel Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-01-26
Authors: Melissa L Rethlefsen; Shona Kirtley; Siw Waffenschmidt; Ana Patricia Ayala; David Moher; Matthew J Page; Jonathan B Koffel Journal: J Med Libr Assoc Date: 2021-04-01