Updates on ultrasound research in implant dentistry: a systematic review of potential clinical indications

Background Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration. Methods The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process. Results The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. Conclusions The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and therefore reproducible.

show abstract

“… “A comprehensive literature search was initially run on 26 February 2017 and then rerun on 5 February 2018….” [ 127 ] …”

Section: Part 3: Explanation and Elaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In medicine, the use of non‐ionizing ultrasound has been established and advocated for many years (Bhaskar, Chan, MacEachern, & Kripfgans, ; Hoskins & Kenwright, ; Moskalik et al, ; Oelze & Mamou, ). In dentistry, its advantage for providing low‐cost real‐time cross‐sectional images can be quite useful as it relates to providing optimal soft tissue contrast of pertinent anatomical structures and the peri‐implant tissues (Bhaskar et al, ; Chan, Sinjab, et al, ; Chan et al, ). Additionally, ultrasound has been validated for measuring tissue thickness in different locations of the oral cavity (Chan, Sinjab, et al, ; Chan, Wang, Fowlkes, Giannobile, & Kripfgans, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasonographic characterization of lingual structures pertinent to oral, periodontal, and implant surgery

Barootchi

Chan

Namazi

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Increased applications of ridge augmentation in the lingual posterior mandible call for an urgent need to study its anatomy. Therefore, our first aim was to validate ultrasound in measuring the mandibular lingual structures in human cadavers. Secondarily, to test its feasibility in imaging the lingual nerve in live humans. Materials and methods Nine fresh un‐embalmed fully/partially edentulous cadaver heads were utilized for aim 1. Three areas in the lingual mandible were imaged (mandibular premolar, molar, and retromolar). Immediately after, biopsies were harvested from each site. The thickness of the mucosa, mylohyoid muscle, and lingual nerve diameter was measured via ultrasound and statistically compared to histology. Similarly, the lingual nerve in live humans was also imaged. Results None of the differences between the ultrasound and histology measurements reached statistical significance (p > .05). The mean mucosal thickness via ultrasound and histology was 1.45 ± 0.49 and 1.39 ± 0.50 mm, 5 mm lingual to the mylohyoid muscle attachment. At 10 mm beyond the attachment, the ultrasound and histologic values were 1.54 ± 0.48 and 1.37 ± 0.49, respectively. The mean muscle thickness measured via ultrasound and histology was 2.31 ± 0.56 and 2.25 ± 0.47 mm, at the 5 mm distance. At the 10 mm distance, the measurements were 2.46 ± 0.56 and 2.36 ± 0.5 mm, respectively. The mean ultrasonic lingual nerve diameter was 2.38 ± 0.44 mm, versus 2.43 ± 0.42 mm, with histology. The lingual nerve diameter on 19 live humans averaged to 2.01 ± 0.35 mm (1.4–3.1 mm). Conclusions Within its limitations, ultrasound accurately measured mandibular lingual soft tissue structures on cadavers, and the lingual nerve on live humans.

show abstract

“…Although some possible advantages of MRI in the oral cavity have been described, its use in dentistry is still very limited and further studies are needed to assess its applicability, accuracy and cost benefits (Mendes et al, 2020). Non‐ionizing, real‐time ultrasonography has been widely used in medicine (Bhaskar et al, 2018). Recent technological advances have allowed for the fabrication of miniature‐sized probes with high‐quality image and this may explain the increase use of ultrasonography in dentistry for a chair‐side non‐invasive evaluation of anatomical structures, periodontal and peri‐implant tissues (Barootchi, Chan, et al 2020; Chan & Kripfgans, 2020; Tattan et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent technological advances have allowed for the fabrication of miniature‐sized probes with high‐quality image and this may explain the increase use of ultrasonography in dentistry for a chair‐side non‐invasive evaluation of anatomical structures, periodontal and peri‐implant tissues (Barootchi, Chan, et al 2020; Chan & Kripfgans, 2020; Tattan et al, 2019). Nevertheless, potential limitation of this technology includes the inability to penetrate the bone and the narrow field of view (Bhaskar et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volumetric changes at implant sites: A systematic appraisal of traditional methods and optical scanning‐based digital technologies

Tavelli

Barootchi

Majzoub

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo evaluate techniques for assessing soft tissue alterations at implant sites and compare the traditionally utilized methods to the newer three‐dimensional technologies emerging in the literature.Materials and MethodsA comprehensive search was performed to identify interventional studies reporting on volumetric changes at implant sites following different treatments.ResultsSeventy‐five articles were included the following: 30 used transgingival piercing alone, one utilized calliper, six with ultrasonography, six on cone‐beam computed tomography, and 32 utilized optical scanning and digital technologies. Optical scanning‐based digital technologies were the only approach that provided ‘volumetric changes,’ reported as volumetric variation in mm3, or the mean distance between the surfaces/mean thickness of the reconstructed volume. High variability in the digital analysis and definition of the region of interest was observed. All the other methods reported volume variation as linear dimensional changes at different apico‐coronal levels. No studies compared volumetric changes with different approaches.ConclusionsDespite the emergence of optical scanning‐based digital technologies for evaluating volumetric changes, a high degree of variation exists in the executed workflow, which renders the comparison of study results not feasible. Establishment of universal guidelines could allow for volumetric comparisons among different studies and treatments.

show abstract

Updates on ultrasound research in implant dentistry: a systematic review of potential clinical indications

Abstract: 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.

Cited by 33 publications

References 50 publications

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

Ultrasonographic characterization of lingual structures pertinent to oral, periodontal, and implant surgery

Volumetric changes at implant sites: A systematic appraisal of traditional methods and optical scanning‐based digital technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About