Research
Published evidence: dental and head-and-neck ultrasound versus X-ray, CBCT and CT
A curated library of peer-reviewed studies, sorted by what they compared. Summaries are KronosMD’s reading of the published abstracts; follow the citation for the original.
What the research says
In the authors’ own words
Verbatim sentences from peer-reviewed reviews of ultrasound in dentistry, with a link to each source.
Ultrasonography (US) is a noninvasive, nonionizing, inexpensive, and painless imaging tool… relevant research is promising.
Demirturk Kocasarac H, Angelopoulos C. Ultrasound in Dentistry: Toward a Future of Radiation-Free Imaging. Dent Clin North Am. 2018;62(3):481-489. Source ↗
Ultrasonography represents a promising adjunctive tool in implant dentistry, capable of complementing or, in selected scenarios, replacing conventional radiographic methods.
Barausse C, Tayeb S, Sansavini M, Pellegrino G, Felice P. Diagnostic Applications of Ultrasound Imaging in Dental Implantology: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2025;14(22):8239. Source ↗
US might be a feasible and valuable diagnostic tool for the periodontium, with the potential to complement shortfalls of current radiographic technologies.
Figueredo CA, Catunda RQ, Gibson MP, Major PW, Almeida FT. Use of ultrasound imaging for assessment of the periodontium: A systematic review. J Periodontal Res. 2024;59(1):3-17. Source ↗
The use of ultrasound in dentistry can represent a valid radiation-free alternative, in certain contexts, to the other most used exams.
Reda R, Zanza A, Cicconetti A, Bhandi S, Miccoli G, Gambarini G, Di Nardo D. Ultrasound Imaging in Dentistry: A Literature Overview. J Imaging. 2021;7(11):238. Source ↗
… with the future prospect of radiation-free assessment of osteoimmunological abnormalities in the jawbone.
Huber R, Choukroun E, Fahrenholz H, Notter F. Dental Ultrasonography for Visualizing Osteoimmune Conditions and Assessing Jaw Bone Density: A Narrative Review. Med Devices (Auckl). 2025;18:1-13. Source ↗
Quotations are reproduced verbatim from the published abstracts and conclusions under fair use, with ellipses marking omitted words; they describe research-grade ultrasound systems and the field in general, not S-WAVE™, and the authors have no affiliation with KronosMD. Read the full articles before drawing conclusions.
Precision at a glance
How close ultrasound comes to the reference, study by study
%3C/text%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%231E1B3A%22 text-anchor=%22end%22 x=%22290%22 y=%2250%22%3EChifor 2022 %C2%B7 3D scanner vs CAD phantom%3C/text%3E%3Cline opacity=%22.45%22 stroke=%22%235B2BE0%22 stroke-linecap=%22round%22 stroke-width=%226%22 x1=%22316%22 x2=%22357%22 y1=%2246%22 y2=%2246%22%3E%3C/line%3E%3Ccircle cx=%22316%22 cy=%2246%22 fill=%22%235B2BE0%22 r=%227%22%3E%3C/circle%3E%3Ccircle cx=%22357%22 cy=%2246%22 fill=%22%235B2BE0%22 r=%227%22%3E%3C/circle%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%236B6B8A%22 style=%22paint-order:stroke;stroke:%23fff;stroke-width:4px%22 x=%22371%22 y=%2250%22%3E0.014%E2%80%930.05 mm%3C/text%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%231E1B3A%22 text-anchor=%22end%22 x=%22290%22 y=%2294%22%3EWang 2026 %C2%B7 bone thickness vs micro-CT%3C/text%3E%3Ccircle cx=%22357%22 cy=%2290%22 fill=%22%235B2BE0%22 r=%227%22%3E%3C/circle%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%236B6B8A%22 style=%22paint-order:stroke;stroke:%23fff;stroke-width:4px%22 x=%22371%22 y=%2294%22%3E0.05 mm%3C/text%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%231E1B3A%22 text-anchor=%22end%22 x=%22290%22 y=%22138%22%3ENguyen 2023 %C2%B7 bone level vs CBCT%3C/text%3E%3Ccircle cx=%22380%22 cy=%22134%22 fill=%22%235B2BE0%22 r=%227%22%3E%3C/circle%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%236B6B8A%22 style=%22paint-order:stroke;stroke:%23fff;stroke-width:4px%22 x=%22394%22 y=%22138%22%3E0.07 mm%3C/text%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%231E1B3A%22 text-anchor=%22end%22 x=%22290%22 y=%22182%22%3EAlizad-Rahvar 2024 %C2%B7 gum thickness vs probing%3C/text%3E%3Ccircle cx=%22529%22 cy=%22178%22 fill=%22%235B2BE0%22 r=%227%22%3E%3C/circle%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%236B6B8A%22 style=%22paint-order:stroke;stroke:%23fff;stroke-width:4px%22 x=%22543%22 y=%22182%22%3E0.2 mm%3C/text%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%231E1B3A%22 text-anchor=%22end%22 x=%22290%22 y=%22226%22%3EWang 2026 %C2%B7 alveolar bone level vs micro-CT%3C/text%3E%3Cline opacity=%22.45%22 stroke=%22%235B2BE0%22 stroke-linecap=%22round%22 stroke-width=%226%22 x1=%22506%22 x2=%22654%22 y1=%22222%22 y2=%22222%22%3E%3C/line%3E%3Ccircle cx=%22506%22 cy=%22222%22 fill=%22%235B2BE0%22 r=%227%22%3E%3C/circle%3E%3Ccircle cx=%22654%22 cy=%22222%22 fill=%22%235B2BE0%22 r=%227%22%3E%3C/circle%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%236B6B8A%22 style=%22paint-order:stroke;stroke:%23fff;stroke-width:4px%22 x=%22668%22 y=%22226%22%3E0.18%E2%80%930.31 mm%3C/text%3E%3Ctext fill=%22%236B6B8A%22 text-anchor=%22middle%22 x=%22500%22 y=%22278%22%3Edifference from the reference measurement, millimetres%3C/text%3E%3C/svg%3E)
caries sensitivity vs 75% for bitewing X-rays (Matalon 2007, 197 surfaces)
pooled sensitivity / specificity of ultrasound vs CT for maxillofacial fractures (22 studies)
studies in which ultrasound beat radiographs for periapical lesions against histology
Values as reported in the cited abstracts; references differ (micro-CT, CBCT, probing, CAD phantom) and are not directly comparable. None used S-WAVE™.
Teeth, bone and gums
Dental ultrasound compared with X-ray, CBCT, micro-CT and histology
Wang, Le et al.
Alveolar bone within 0.18–0.31 mm of micro-CT (ICC 0.94–0.96); bone thickness within 0.05 mm; in vivo inter-rater ICC ≥ 0.82.
Tayman et al.
Clinically acceptable accuracy for peri-implant bone defects with high-frequency ultrasound.
—
Enamel, dentin and pulp layers resolved with high-frequency ultrasound.
Samal et al.
High-frequency ultrasound detects periodontal inflammation preclinically.
Alizad-Rahvar et al.
Gingival thickness within ~0.2 mm of invasive probing (ICC up to 0.87), 34 patients, 1,360 sites.
Figueredo et al.
Systematic review: ultrasound reliably assesses the periodontium; calls for standardized devices.
Nguyen, Le et al.
Bone level within 0.07 mm of CBCT and more reproducible: inter-rater ICC 0.97 vs 0.69. Ultrasound “may be the better tool.”
—
Crack detection through radiopaque restorations where X-rays are blinded.
Bohner, Marotti et al.
42 MHz intraoral scanner produced 3D point clouds of prepared teeth and implant scan bodies in vitro.
Kim et al.
High-frequency ultrasound separated early demineralized enamel; lesion depth matched micro-CT.
Matalon et al.
Caries in patients: 82% sensitivity vs 75% for bitewing X-rays (197 surfaces, 47 adults); in vitro 100%/100% vs histology (2003).
Culjat et al.
“Unequivocally distinguished” cracked from intact regions below the enamel-dentin junction.
—
Enamel thickness r = 0.97 vs histology; remaining dentin r = 0.87.
Ghorayeb et al.
Early demonstration that enamel, dentin and pulp boundaries return distinct echoes.
Head and neck
Ultrasound compared with CT in the jaws, face and TMJ
Gadicherla et al. · meta-analysis, 22 studies
Ultrasound vs CT for maxillofacial fractures: pooled sensitivity 0.94, specificity 0.96; nasal bone 0.99/0.94, orbit 0.92/0.94.
Patil et al. · systematic review, 5 studies
Ultrasound vs radiographs for periapical lesions (cyst vs granuloma, histopathology reference): ultrasound more accurate in every included study; two studies reported perfect agreement with histology.
Ultrasonographic and radiographic evaluation of TMJ osteoarthritic changes
Ultrasound compared with radiographic imaging for condylar changes in the temporomandibular joint.
Chifor et al. · Cluj-Napoca
Handheld 3D ultrasound scanner: full-arch phantom reconstructed as a point cloud with mean error 0.014–0.050 mm against a CAD reference.
Figueredo et al. · systematic review
Ultrasound reliably assesses the periodontium; the field needs standardized, dedicated devices.
What CT does better
Deep, complex fractures and full 3D bone anatomy for surgical planning; ultrasound cannot see through intact cortical bone.
What ultrasound does better
Bedside, repeatable, radiation-free assessment of superficial bone, soft tissue, joints and periapical lesions once the cortex is thinned.
Why it matters for S-WAVE™
The structures a monthly home scan needs to follow, enamel, gums and the crest of the bone around each tooth, are the shallow ones where ultrasound is at its best.
How to read these studies
Four questions to ask of any imaging comparison
What was the reference?
Histology and micro-CT are gold standards; CBCT and radiographs are themselves imperfect. A study that beats radiographs is not the same as one that matches histology.
Who held the probe?
All published dental results come from clinicians operating research systems. Operator skill drives results; a fixed tray is designed to remove that variable.
In vitro or in people?
Extracted teeth and phantoms show what the physics can do; patient studies show what survives saliva, movement and anatomy.
What is S-WAVE™ evidence?
None of these studies used S-WAVE™. They support the physics and clinical value of dental ultrasound; S-WAVE™’s own performance will be established in its FDA testing plan.
Dental imaging without radiation, from home.
Questions about S-WAVE™, the research or a collaboration? Our team is here to help.