<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec>
<h3>Background</h3>
<p>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.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Aims</h3>
<p>To compare the accuracy of ultrasonography and CBCT in measuring the soft tissue thickness of the maxillary and mandibular gingiva in a sheep model.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Materials and Methods</h3>
<p>In this study, 38 different 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 finally compared with each other.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>Regarding the thicknesses &lt; 2 mm, no significant difference was seen between the measurements of the digital caliper and ultrasonography (mean difference &lt; 0.1 mm, p = 0.140). Conversely, data analysis indicated significant differences between CBCTs measurements and digital caliper and ultrasonography measurements. Regarding thicknesses > 2 mm, digital caliper measurement was not significantly different from ultrasonography and high-resolution CBCT measurements (mean differences &lt; 0.1 mm) but differed from the standard CBCT measurement. Also, a significant difference was observed between ultrasonography and standard CBCT measurements but not between ultrasonography and high-resolution CBCT (mean differences &lt; 0.1 mm). Finally, mean differences between standard and high-resolution CBCT measurements were statistically significant.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>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 different imaging methods when planning dental procedures.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

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 different 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 finally compared with each other.


Results
Regarding the thicknesses < 2 mm, no significant difference was seen between the measurements of the digital caliper and ultrasonography (mean difference < 0.1 mm, p = 0.140). Conversely, data analysis indicated significant differences between CBCTs measurements and digital caliper and ultrasonography measurements. Regarding thicknesses > 2 mm, digital caliper measurement was not significantly different from ultrasonography and high-resolution CBCT measurements (mean differences < 0.1 mm) but differed from the standard CBCT measurement. Also, a significant difference was observed between ultrasonography and standard CBCT measurements but not between ultrasonography and high-resolution CBCT (mean differences < 0.1 mm). Finally, mean differences between standard and high-resolution CBCT measurements were statistically significant.


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 different imaging methods when planning dental procedures.

Comparison of Ultrasonography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Accuracy in Measuring the Soft Tissue Thickness of Maxillary and Mandibular Gingiva in a Sheep Model

Acta Medica Bulgarica

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

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 different 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 finally compared with each other.


Results
Regarding the thicknesses  2 mm, digital caliper measurement was not significantly different from ultrasonography and high-resolution CBCT measurements (mean differences < 0.1 mm) but differed from the standard CBCT measurement. Also, a significant difference was observed between ultrasonography and standard CBCT measurements but not between ultrasonography and high-resolution CBCT (mean differences < 0.1 mm). Finally, mean differences between standard and high-resolution CBCT measurements were statistically significant.


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 different imaging methods when planning dental procedures.

Background
To date, few studies have compared the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and ultrasonography in measuring the soft tissue thickness...

Comparison of Ultrasonography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Accuracy in Measuring the Soft Tissue Thickness of Maxillary and Mandibular Gingiva in a Sheep Model

Article Category: Original Article

Published Online: Dec 15, 2023

Page range: 41 - 46

Received: May 12, 2023

Accepted: Jul 11, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amb-2023-0042

© 2023 S. Latifi et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.