Cargando…
Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review
Background: Ultrasonography is a non-invasive method of diagnosing periapical lesions while radiologic methods are more common. Periapical lesions due to endodontic infection are one of the most common causes of periapical radiolucency that need to be distinguished to help determine the course of tr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8303698/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34359291 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11071208 |
_version_ | 1783727150752333824 |
---|---|
author | Patil, Shankargouda Alkahtani, Ahmed Bhandi, Shilpa Mashyakhy, Mohammed Alvarez, Mario Alroomy, Riyadh Hendi, Ali Varadarajan, Saranya Reda, Rodolfo Raj, A. Thirumal Testarelli, Luca |
author_facet | Patil, Shankargouda Alkahtani, Ahmed Bhandi, Shilpa Mashyakhy, Mohammed Alvarez, Mario Alroomy, Riyadh Hendi, Ali Varadarajan, Saranya Reda, Rodolfo Raj, A. Thirumal Testarelli, Luca |
author_sort | Patil, Shankargouda |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Ultrasonography is a non-invasive method of diagnosing periapical lesions while radiologic methods are more common. Periapical lesions due to endodontic infection are one of the most common causes of periapical radiolucency that need to be distinguished to help determine the course of treatment. This review aimed to examine the accuracy of ultrasound and compare it to radiographs in distinguishing these lesions in vivo. Methods: This review process followed the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search of databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) was conducted without any restrictions on time. Articles available in English were included. The selection was done according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Results: The search provided a total of 87 articles, out of which, five were selected for the final review. In all the studies, ultrasound had higher accuracy in distinguishing periapical lesions. All the studies indicated a risk of bias, especially in patient selection. Conclusion: Within limitations, the study indicates that ultrasound is a better diagnostic tool to distinguish periapical lesions compared to radiographs but further studies with well-designed, rigorous protocols and low risk of bias are needed to provide stronger evidence. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8303698 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83036982021-07-25 Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review Patil, Shankargouda Alkahtani, Ahmed Bhandi, Shilpa Mashyakhy, Mohammed Alvarez, Mario Alroomy, Riyadh Hendi, Ali Varadarajan, Saranya Reda, Rodolfo Raj, A. Thirumal Testarelli, Luca Diagnostics (Basel) Systematic Review Background: Ultrasonography is a non-invasive method of diagnosing periapical lesions while radiologic methods are more common. Periapical lesions due to endodontic infection are one of the most common causes of periapical radiolucency that need to be distinguished to help determine the course of treatment. This review aimed to examine the accuracy of ultrasound and compare it to radiographs in distinguishing these lesions in vivo. Methods: This review process followed the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search of databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) was conducted without any restrictions on time. Articles available in English were included. The selection was done according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Results: The search provided a total of 87 articles, out of which, five were selected for the final review. In all the studies, ultrasound had higher accuracy in distinguishing periapical lesions. All the studies indicated a risk of bias, especially in patient selection. Conclusion: Within limitations, the study indicates that ultrasound is a better diagnostic tool to distinguish periapical lesions compared to radiographs but further studies with well-designed, rigorous protocols and low risk of bias are needed to provide stronger evidence. MDPI 2021-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8303698/ /pubmed/34359291 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11071208 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Patil, Shankargouda Alkahtani, Ahmed Bhandi, Shilpa Mashyakhy, Mohammed Alvarez, Mario Alroomy, Riyadh Hendi, Ali Varadarajan, Saranya Reda, Rodolfo Raj, A. Thirumal Testarelli, Luca Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review |
title | Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | ultrasound imaging versus radiographs in differentiating periapical lesions: a systematic review |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8303698/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34359291 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11071208 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT patilshankargouda ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT alkahtaniahmed ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT bhandishilpa ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT mashyakhymohammed ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT alvarezmario ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT alroomyriyadh ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT hendiali ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT varadarajansaranya ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT redarodolfo ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT rajathirumal ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview AT testarelliluca ultrasoundimagingversusradiographsindifferentiatingperiapicallesionsasystematicreview |