Measuring the alveolar bone level in adolescents: A comparison between ultrasound and cone beam computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is an imaging modality, which is used routinely in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning but delivers much higher radiation than conventional dental radiographs. Ultrasound is a noninvasive imaging method that creates an image without ionizing radiation. AIM: To investigate the reliability of ultrasound and the agreement between ultrasound and CBCT in measuring the alveolar bone level (ABL) on the buccal/labial side of the incisors in adolescent orthodontic patients. DESIGN: One hundred and eighteen incisors from 30 orthodontic adolescent patients were scanned by CBCT with 0.3-mm voxel size and ultrasound at 20 MHz frequency. The ABL, distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar bone crest (ABC), was measured twice to evaluate the agreement between ultrasound and CBCT. In addition, the intra- and inter-rater reliabilities in measuring the ABL by four raters were compared. RESULTS: The mean difference (MD) in the ABL between ultrasound and CBCT was -0.07 mm with 95% limit of agreement (LoA) from -0.47 to 0.32 mm for all teeth. For each jaw, the MDs between the ultrasound and CBCT were -0.18 mm (for mandible with 95% LoA from -0.53 to 0.18 mm) and 0.03 mm (for maxilla with 95% LoA from -0.28 to 0.35 mm). In comparison, ultrasound had higher intra-rater (ICC = 0.83-0.90) and inter-rater reliabilities (ICC = 0.97) in ABL measurement than CBCT (ICC = 0.56-0.78 for intra-rater and ICC = 0.69 for inter-rater reliabilities). CONCLUSION: CBCT parameters used in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning in adolescents may not be a reliable tool to assess the ABL for the mandibular incisors. On the contrary, ultrasound imaging, an ionizing radiation-free, inexpensive, and portable diagnostic tool, has potential to be a reliable diagnostic tool in assessing the ABL in adolescent patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".