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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Patil, Shankargouda, Alkahtani, Ahmed, Bhandi, Shilpa, Mashyakhy, Mohammed, Alvarez, Mario, Alroomy, Riyadh, Hendi, Ali, Varadarajan, Saranya, Reda, Rodolfo, Raj, A. Thirumal, Testarelli, Luca
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