OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the sensitivity and specificity of multislice computerized tomography (CT) for diagnosis of maxillofacial fractures following specific protocols using an independent workstation. STUDY DESIGN: The study population consisted of 56 patients with maxillofacial fractures who were submitted to a multislice CT. The original data were transferred to an independent workstation using volumetric imaging software to generate axial images and simultaneous multiplanar (MPR) and 3-dimensional (3D-CT) volume rendering reconstructed images. The images were then processed and interpreted by 2 examiners using the following protocols independently of each other: axial, MPR/axial, 3D-CT images, and the association of axial/MPR/3D images. The clinical/surgical findings were considered the gold standard corroborating the diagnosis of the fractures and their anatomic localization. The statistical analysis was carried out using validity and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The association of axial/MPR/3D images indicated a higher sensitivity (range 95.8%) and specificity (range 99%) than the other methods regarding the analysis of all regions. CONCLUSION: CT imaging demonstrated high specificity and sensitivity for maxillofacial fractures. The association of axial/MPR/3D-CT images added important information in relationship to other CT protocols.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the sensitivity and specificity of multislice computerized tomography (CT) for diagnosis of maxillofacial fractures following specific protocols using an independent workstation. STUDY DESIGN: The study population consisted of 56 patients with maxillofacial fractures who were submitted to a multislice CT. The original data were transferred to an independent workstation using volumetric imaging software to generate axial images and simultaneous multiplanar (MPR) and 3-dimensional (3D-CT) volume rendering reconstructed images. The images were then processed and interpreted by 2 examiners using the following protocols independently of each other: axial, MPR/axial, 3D-CT images, and the association of axial/MPR/3D images. The clinical/surgical findings were considered the gold standard corroborating the diagnosis of the fractures and their anatomic localization. The statistical analysis was carried out using validity and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The association of axial/MPR/3D images indicated a higher sensitivity (range 95.8%) and specificity (range 99%) than the other methods regarding the analysis of all regions. CONCLUSION: CT imaging demonstrated high specificity and sensitivity for maxillofacial fractures. The association of axial/MPR/3D-CT images added important information in relationship to other CT protocols.