Kıvanç Kamburoğlu1, Esra Ece Çakmak1, Nejlan Eratam1, Gül Sönmez2, Sevilay Karahan3. 1. Dept of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Dept of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Adakent University, via Mersin 10, Turkey. 3. Dept of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Providing ultrasound images of periapical lesions may be problematic depending on the thickness of the overlying cortical bone. Clinically, it is crucial to determine the cut-off value of overlaying bone thickness in terms of interference with ultrasound imaging in conjunction with assessment of changes in periapical jaw bone lesions. Our aim was to determine the minimum amount of overlaying buccal bone thickness of artificial periapical lesions in order to be visible by ultrasound imaging and to compare width, height, depth, surface area and volume measurements of detectable periapical lesions obtained from ultrasound and CBCT images. METHODS: Periapical lesions were created in 16 molar teeth of sheep mandibles. Cavities were enlarged until the borders of lesions were visible on 14 MHz hockey probe ultrasound imaging. CBCT and ultrasound images were obtained simultaneously after drilling and enlarging each size of the cavities and replacing the teeth in their sockets. two observers separately assessed images twice within 2 weeks of interval. By using CBCT and ultrasound images, buccal bone thickness, maximum width, height, depth, surface area and volume of periapical lesions were measured. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was utilized and significance level was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The mean buccal bone thickness ranged between 1.21 mm and 1.31 mm for both imaging techniques. For the measurement of buccal bone thickness, periapical lesion width, height, depth, surface area, and volume excellent ICC values were found in terms of intrarater (ranging between 0.907 and 1) and inter-rater (ranging between 0.864 and 1) reliability for both observers and their readings. There were no statistically significant differences for both observers and for their two readings between ultrasound and CBCT measurements of buccal bone thickness, and periapical lesion width and height (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We suggested that a buccal thickness of approximately 1.28 mm might be accepted as a cut-off value for the detection of periapical lesions with 14 MHz hockey probe ultrasound. High resolution ultrasound provided accurate information for the measurement of buccal bone thickness and lesion width and height.
OBJECTIVES: Providing ultrasound images of periapical lesions may be problematic depending on the thickness of the overlying cortical bone. Clinically, it is crucial to determine the cut-off value of overlaying bone thickness in terms of interference with ultrasound imaging in conjunction with assessment of changes in periapical jaw bone lesions. Our aim was to determine the minimum amount of overlaying buccal bone thickness of artificial periapical lesions in order to be visible by ultrasound imaging and to compare width, height, depth, surface area and volume measurements of detectable periapical lesions obtained from ultrasound and CBCT images. METHODS: Periapical lesions were created in 16 molar teeth of sheep mandibles. Cavities were enlarged until the borders of lesions were visible on 14 MHz hockey probe ultrasound imaging. CBCT and ultrasound images were obtained simultaneously after drilling and enlarging each size of the cavities and replacing the teeth in their sockets. two observers separately assessed images twice within 2 weeks of interval. By using CBCT and ultrasound images, buccal bone thickness, maximum width, height, depth, surface area and volume of periapical lesions were measured. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was utilized and significance level was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The mean buccal bone thickness ranged between 1.21 mm and 1.31 mm for both imaging techniques. For the measurement of buccal bone thickness, periapical lesion width, height, depth, surface area, and volume excellent ICC values were found in terms of intrarater (ranging between 0.907 and 1) and inter-rater (ranging between 0.864 and 1) reliability for both observers and their readings. There were no statistically significant differences for both observers and for their two readings between ultrasound and CBCT measurements of buccal bone thickness, and periapical lesion width and height (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We suggested that a buccal thickness of approximately 1.28 mm might be accepted as a cut-off value for the detection of periapical lesions with 14 MHz hockey probe ultrasound. High resolution ultrasound provided accurate information for the measurement of buccal bone thickness and lesion width and height.
Authors: Namita Raghav; Sujatha S Reddy; A G Giridhar; Srinivas Murthy; B K Yashodha Devi; N Santana; N Rakesh; Atul Kaushik Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2010-09