Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review
Shankargouda Patil,
Ahmed Alkahtani,
Shilpa Bhandi,
Mohammed Mashyakhy,
Mario Alvarez,
Riyadh Alroomy,
Ali Hendi,
Saranya Varadarajan,
Rodolfo Reda,
A. Thirumal Raj,
Luca Testarelli
Affiliations
Shankargouda Patil
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Oral Pathology, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
Ahmed Alkahtani
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
Shilpa Bhandi
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
Mohammed Mashyakhy
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
Mario Alvarez
Division of Endodontics and Orthodontics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA
Riyadh Alroomy
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Majmaah University, AlMajmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia
Ali Hendi
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
Saranya Varadarajan
Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital, Chennai 600130, India
Rodolfo Reda
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University, University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
A. Thirumal Raj
Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital, Chennai 600130, India
Luca Testarelli
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University, University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
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.
