The feasibility of ultrasonography for the measurement of periodontal and peri‐implant phenotype: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundScreening ultrasonography was proposed for monitoring periodontal soft tissues in the early 1960s, owing to its nonionizing, real‐time, and cost‐effective properties. Studies have provided convincing preliminary evidence for the use of ultrasound (US) in implant dentistry.PurposeTo assess the feasibility of ultrasonography (US) for measuring the buccal thickness of periodontal and peri‐implant tissues. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reliability of US measurements compared to classic techniques, such as CBCT and directly measurements.Materials and MethodsAn electronic literature search was conducted by three independent reviewers through February 2023. The inclusion criteria were articles investigating at least five patients/cadavers with US measurements in periodontal or peri‐implant buccal tissues. Compliance with methodological reporting standards and risk of bias was assessed using EULAR and QUADAS‐C tools, respectively. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was conducted, using Bland–Altman analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsThe final selection included 12 studies examining 458 patients and 13 cadavers, with a total of 226 implants, 1958 teeth and 60 edentulous sites. The body of evidence was assessed as partially compliant with methodological reporting standards for US studies and had an unclear to high risk of bias. Meta‐analysis of five comparative studies showed no evidence of clinically significant bias between US and direct measurements (very low certainty), and between US and CBCT (very low certainty) for soft‐tissue thickness. Likewise, for bone thickness, there is no evidence of clinically significant bias between US and CBCT (low certainty).ConclusionsCompared to the CBCT and direct measurements, ultrasonography might be a reliable approach for monitoring on periodontal and peri‐implant phenotype. However, there is uncertainty about estimates of the actual effect, so further standardized and larger sample size of clinical research is needed.