Review on the applications of ultrasonography in dentomaxillofacial region

Table 1 Diagnosis of fractures with ultrasonography

Ref.	Design	Sample size	Fracture	Method	Accuracy
Nemati S et al[28]	Single blind	37	Nasal bone	Physical exam	100%
Atighechi et al[29]	Prospective	128	Nasal bone	Physical exam	84%
Ogunmuyiwa et al[30]	Prospective	21	Zygomaticomaxillary	CT	100% zygomaticarch
					90% infraorbital
					25% frontozygomatic
Mohammadi et al[31]	Retrospective	70	Nasal bone	Physical exam	97%
Javadrashid et al[32]	Cross-sectional	40	Nasal bone	CT	94.90%
Lee et al[33]	Cross-sectional	140	Nasal bone	CT	100%
Blessmann et al[27]	Cross-sectional	10	Midfacial	CT	Undisplaced zygoma
Jank et al[34]	Prospective	13	Orbital	CT	92% medial wall 88% lateral wall
					88% medial wall
Jank et al[35]	Prospective	40	Orbital	CT	90% lateral wall
					97% infraorbital
Jank et al[36]	Prospective	58	Orbital	CT	96% orbital floor

CT: Computed tomography.

Table 2 Comparision of ultrasonography studies for the assessment of temporomandibular joint

Ref.	Sample size	Method	Accuracy
Razek et al[44]	40	MRI	77.5% anterior displacement
			66.7% sideway displacement
Bas et al[45]	182	Clinical diagnosis	71%
Byahatti et al[46]	400	Clinical diagnosis	76%
Cakir-Ozkan et al[9]	56	MRI	68%
Landes et al[47]	68	MRI	64% 2 dimensional
			69% 3 dimensional
Landes et al[48]	272	MRI	70%
Tognini et al[49]	82	MRI	73.10%
Jank et al[50]	200 (high resolution US)	MRI	Disk displacement 92% closemouth; 90% openmouth
Emshoff R et al[51]	96	MRI	Disk displacement without reduction 93%
Uysal et al[52]	64	MRI	Internal derangement
			100%
Emshoff et al[53]	128	MRI	Internal derangement 95%
			Disk displacement without reduction 90%
			Disk displacement with reduction 92%

MRI: Magnetic resonance ımaging; US: Ultrasonography.

Table 3 Studies assessing salivary gland tumors by use of ultrasonography

Ref.	Design	Sample size	Method	Accurancy
Song HI et al[64]		228 US (CNB)	Histology	88.20%
		371 FNAC		58.20%
Davachi et al[61]	Cross-sectional	22	MR	95%
Higashino et al[65]	Prospective	154	Histopathology	89%
Freed[66]	Retrospective	35	CT	89%
Pfeiffer J et al[67]	Prospective	161 (CNB)	Histopathology	94%
Wu et al[68]	Retrospective	189	Histopathology(benign malign differentiate)	38.90%
El-Khateeb et al[69]	Prospective	44	Histopathology (grey scala US-tumor border)	84%
			CD US vasculartumor	81%
			SPD malignant tumor	81%
Huang et al[70]	Retrospective	64 (CNB)	Histopathology	94.10%
		107 (FNA)		55.60%
Kraft et al[71]	Retrospective	104 (FNA)	Histopathology	99%
Bozzato et al[72]	Cross-sectional	125	Histopathology	92.80%

US: Ultrasonography; MR: Magnetic resonance; CT: Computed tomography; CNB: Core needle biopsy; FNA: Fine needle aspiration; FNAC: Fine needle aspiration cytology; CD: Color doopler; SPD: Spectral doppler.