Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

  • 제44권1호
  • /
  • Pages.18-24
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2234-7550(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-5930(eISSN)
대한구강악안면외과학회 (The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of accuracy between panoramic radiography, cone-beam computed tomography, and ultrasonography in detection of foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study

  • Abdinian, Mehrdad (Dental Implants Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Science) ;
  • Aminian, Maedeh (Department of Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Science) ;
  • Seyyedkhamesi, Samad (Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch)
  • 투고 : 2017.07.15
  • 심사 : 2017.08.16
  • 발행 : 2018.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: Foreign bodies (FBs) account for 3.8% of all pathologies of the head and neck region, and approximately one third of them are missed on initial examination. Thus, FBs represent diagnostic challenges to maxillofacial surgeons, rendering it necessary to employ an appropriate imaging modality in suspected cases. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, five different materials, including wood, metal, glass, tooth and stone, were prepared in three sizes (0.5, 1, and 2 mm) and placed in three locations (soft tissue, air-filled space and bone surface) within a sheep's head (one day after death) and scanned by panoramic radiography, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and ultrasonography (US) devices. The images were reviewed, and accuracy of the detection modalities was recorded. The data were analyzed statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U-test, Friedman, Wilcoxon signed-rank and kappa tests (P<0.05). Results: CBCT was more accurate in detection of FBs than panoramic radiography and US (P<0.001). Metal was the most visible FB in all of modalities. US was the most accurate technique for detecting wooden materials, and CBCT was the best modality for detecting all other materials, regardless of size or location (P<0.05). The detection accuracy of US was greater in soft tissue, while both CBCT and panoramic radiography had minimal accuracy in detection of FBs in soft tissue. Conclusion: CBCT was the most accurate detection modality for all the sizes, locations and compositions of FBs, except for the wooden materials. Therefore, we recommend CBCT as the gold standard of imaging for detecting FBs in the maxillofacial region.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Reginelli A, Santagata M, Urraro F, Somma F, Izzo A, Cappabianca S, et al. Foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region: assessment with multidetector computed tomography. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2015;36:2-7. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2014.10.009
  2. Valizadeh S, Pouraliakbar H, Kiani L, Safi Y, Alibakhshi L. Evaluation of visibility of foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region: comparison of computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Iran J Radiol 2016;13:e37265.
  3. Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarci M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:72-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/68589458
  4. Omezli MM, Torul D, Sivrikaya EC. The prevalence of foreign bodies in jaw bones on panoramic radiography. Indian J Dent 2015;6:185-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-962X.170371
  5. Ober CP, Jones JC, Larson MM, Lanz OI, Werre SR. Comparison of ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detection of acute wooden foreign bodies in the canine manus. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008;49:411-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00399.x
  6. Eggers G, Mukhamadiev D, Hassfeld S. Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:74-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/22475468
  7. Haghnegahdar A, Shakibafard A, Khosravifard N. Comparison between computed tomography and ultrasonography in detecting foreign bodies regarding their composition and depth: an in vitro study. J Dent (Shiraz) 2016;17:177-84.
  8. Oikarinen KS, Nieminen TM, Makarainen H, Pyhtinen J. Visibility of foreign bodies in soft tissue in plain radiographs, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound. An in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;22:119-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80818-5
  9. Kaviani F, Javad Rashid R, Shahmoradi Z, Gholamian M. Detection of foreign bodies by spiral computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in maxillofacial regions. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2014;8:166-71.
  10. Javadrashid R, Fouladi DF, Golamian M, Hajalioghli P, Daghighi MH, Shahmorady Z, et al. Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44:20140229. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140229
  11. Gomaa M, Abdelaal A. Ultrasonography versus radiography in detection of different foreign bodies in a cadaveric calf thigh specimen. Res J Vet Pract 2015;3:83-8. https://doi.org/10.14737/journal.rjvp/2015/3.4.83.88
  12. Holmes PJ, Miller JR, Gutta R, Louis PJ. Intraoperative imaging techniques: a guide to retrieval of foreign bodies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:614-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.02.072
  13. White SC, Pharaoh MJ. Oral radiology, principles and interpretations. St. Louis: Mosby; 2014:111-220.
  14. Javadrashid R, Golamian M, Shahrzad M, Hajalioghli P, Shahmorady Z, Fouladi DF, et al. Visibility of different intraorbital foreign bodies using plain radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and cone-beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. Can Assoc Radiol J 2017;68:194-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2015.09.011
  15. Ginsburg MJ, Ellis GL, Flom LL. Detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies by plain radiography, xerography, computed tomography, and ultrasonography. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:701-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(05)82483-7
  16. Roobottom CA, Weston MJ. The detection of foreign bodies in soft tissue--comparison of conventional and digital radiography. Clin Radiol 1994;49:330-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(05)81799-4
  17. Ganguly R, Ruprecht A, Vincent S, Hellstein J, Timmons S, Qian F. Accuracy of linear measurement in the Galileos cone beam computed tomography under simulated clinical conditions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40:299-305. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/72117593
  18. Lari SS, Shokri A, Hosseinipanah SM, Rostami S, Sabounchi SS. Comparative sensitivity assessment of cone beam computed tomography and digital radiography for detecting foreign bodies. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17:224-9. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1831
  19. Anderson MA, Newmeyer WL 3rd, Kilgore ES Jr. Diagnosis and treatment of retained foreign bodies in the hand. Am J Surg 1982;144:63-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(82)90603-1
  20. Krimmel M, Cornelius CP, Stojadinovic S, Hoffmann J, Reinert S. Wooden foreign bodies in facial injury: a radiological pitfall. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;30:445-7. https://doi.org/10.1054/ijom.2001.0109
  21. Specht CS, Varga JH, Jalali MM, Edelstein JP. Orbitocranial wooden foreign body diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging. Dry wood can be isodense with air and orbital fat by computed tomography. Surv Ophthalmol 1992;36:341-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-6257(92)90110-F
  22. Bushong SC. Radiologic science for technologists: physics, biology, and protection. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2013.

피인용 문헌

  1. Optical surgical navigation-assisted removal of a foreign body using a splint to simplify the registration process: a case report vol.13, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-019-2159-8
  2. Diagnostic yield of cone beam computed tomography for small foreign body detection in the hand in comparison with radiography, MSCT and MRI: an ex vivo study vol.52, pp.10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.01.017