ArticleNational journal of maxillofacial surgery
Ultrasound elastography as a potential diagnostic aid in oral submucous fibrosis.
Article in National journal of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vivo quantification of viscoelastic property alterations in oral submucous fibrosis using optical coherence elastography.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Role of optical imaging in oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders: implications for oral submucous fibrosis.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Review
- Review
- Overview of Ultrasound in Dentistry for Advancing Research Methodology and Patient Care Quality with Emphasis on Periodontal/Peri-implant Applications.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2023Review
- Research Achievements of Oral Submucous Fibrosis: Progress and Prospect.BioMed research international · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) is a well-recognized "potentially malignant" disorder. It mostly affects the productive population of young adults and adolescents. The diagnosis of oral submucous fibrosis is primarily clinical and subjective. The only objective diagnostic method for OSMF is tissue biopsy. This study was conducted to find the potential use of ultrasound elastography to objectively quantify the clinical presentation in accordance with severity of the clinical condition in OSMF. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study sample consisted of 27 clinically diagnosed and staged participants with OSMF. Transcutaneous ultrasonography was done by a single operator on GE Logiq E9 machine with a 6-15 MHz linear matrix probe. Color-coded scheme was used to qualitatively grade the eight different zones of oral mucosa with the use of stress-strain elastography. The grades ranged from 0 to 5, where 0 represented artifacts and color range from red to blue corresponded to varying degree of increasing tissue stiffness. Clinical stage 1, 2, and 3 corresponded to mouth opening of >30 mm, 20-30 mm, and <20 mm, respectively. The summative elastography score range as follows: 8-10, 11-14, and ≥15 represented the respective degree of tissue stiffness from soft, mild stiff to severe stiff.
resultsThe results obtained by Pearson's correlation between the elastographic grading and clinical grading came out to be 0.007, and it was highly significant. The sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic method were 90.9% and 20%, respectively.
conclusionThe advantages of ultrasound elastography as a diagnostic tool over the subjective clinical method of diagnosis and staging of OSMF looks promising. Further studies should be conducted with a suitable specific transducer probe and with quantitative diagnostic elastography method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.