Échographie transalvéolaire dans le diagnostic des lésions inflammatoires de l’os - Drs Elisa Choukroun et Maximilien Parnot

• 1.Bouquot JE, Roberts AM, Person P, Christian J. Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO). Osteomyelitis in 224 jawbone samples from patients with facial neuralgia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992 Mar; 73(3):307–19; discussion 319–20.
• 2.Arron JR, Choi Y. Bone versus immune system. Nature. 2000 Nov 30;408(6812):535–6.
• 3.Lechner J. Validation of dental X-ray by cytokine RANTES – comparison of X-ray findings with cytokine overexpression in jawbone. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2014;6:71–9.
• 4.Lechner J, von Baehr V. Chemokine RANTES/ CCL5 as an unknown link between wound healing in the jawbone and systemic disease: is prediction and tailored treatments in the horizon? EPMA J. 2015;6(1):10.
• 5.Levy JA. The unexpected pleiotropic acti­ vities of RANTES. J Immunol. 2009;182(7): 3945–6.
• 6.Rossi D, Zlotnik A. The biology of che- mokines and their receptors. Annu Rev Immunol. 2000;18:217–42.
• 7.Bischoff SC, Krieger M, Brunner T, Rot A, von Tscharner V, Baggiolini M, Dahinden CA. RANTES and related chemokines activate human basophil granulocytes through different G protein­coupled receptors. Eur J Immunol. 1993 Mar;23(3):761–7.
• 8.Mrowietz U, Schwenk U, Maune S, Bartels J, Küpper M, Fichtner I, Schröder JM, Schadendorf D. The chemokine RANTES is secreted by human melanoma cells and is associated with enhanced tumour for- mation in nude mice. Br J Cancer. 1999 Mar;79(7-8):1025–31.
• 9.Wells C, Peter NT. "Ultrasonic imaging of the human body." Reports on progress in physics 62.5 (1999): 671
• 10.Hans D, Srivastav SK, Singal C, Barkmann R, Njeh CF, Kantorovich E, Glüer CC, Genant HK. Does combining the results from multiple bone sites measured by a new quantitative ultrasound device improve discrimination of hip fracture? J Bone Miner Res. 1999 Apr;14(4):644–51.
• 11.Patil S, Alkahtani A, Bhandi S, Mashyakhy M, Alvarez M, Alroomy R, Hendi A, Varadarajan S, Reda R, Raj AT et al. Ultrasound imaging versus radiographs in differentiating periapical lesions: A syste- (Basel) 2032;11(7):1208.
• 12.Natanasabapathy V, Arul B, Mishra A, Varghese A, Padmanaban S, Elango S, Arockiam S. Ultrasound imaging for the differential diagnosis of periapical lesions of endodontic origin in comparison with histopathology – A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Endod. J. 2021;54(5): 693–711.
• 13.Veltri M, Valenti R, Ceccarelli E, Balleri P, Nuti R, Ferrari M. The speed of sound correlates with implant insertion torque in rabbit bone: An in vitro experiment. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(7): 751–5.
• 14.Sumer AP, Danaci M, Sandikçi EO, Sumer M, Celenk P. Ultrasonography and Doppler ultrasonography in the evaluation of intraosseous lesions of the jaws. Dento­ maxillofac. Radiol. 2009;38(1):23–7.
• 15.Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Majzoub J, Siqueira R, Mendonça G, Wang HL. Volumetric changes at implant sites: A sys- tematic appraisal of traditio- nal methods and optical scanning-based digital technologies. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2021; 48(2):315–34.
• 16.Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J, Kerckaert I, Van Hoof T. Ultrasonic assessment of mucosal thickness around im- plants: Validity, reproducibility, and stability of connective tissue grafts at the buccal aspect. Clin. Im­ plant Dent. Relat. Res. 2026; 18(1):51–61.