OBJECTIVES: To compare the usefulness of four imaging modalities in visualizing various foreign bodies of different sizes. METHODS: Foreign bodies of four sizes (0.5, 1, 2 and 3 mm) including metal, tooth, wood, plastic, stone, glass and graphite were embedded in six fresh sheep heads on bone surface between the corpus mandible and muscle, and inside the tongue muscle. A human dry skull served as an air-filled space. Plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography were used, and four skilled radiologists rated the findings individually. RESULTS: All embedded foreign bodies except wood were best visualized using CT. Wood could only be detected using ultrasonography, and then only when fragments were >0.5 mm in size. Plain radiography and CT were almost equally accurate in visualizing metal and graphite. MRI was the least useful imaging technique. CONCLUSIONS: In cases with suspected foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region, CT seems to be the optimal initial imaging study. Wood, however, could only be detected using ultrasonography.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the usefulness of four imaging modalities in visualizing various foreign bodies of different sizes. METHODS: Foreign bodies of four sizes (0.5, 1, 2 and 3 mm) including metal, tooth, wood, plastic, stone, glass and graphite were embedded in six fresh sheep heads on bone surface between the corpus mandible and muscle, and inside the tongue muscle. A human dry skull served as an air-filled space. Plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography were used, and four skilled radiologists rated the findings individually. RESULTS: All embedded foreign bodies except wood were best visualized using CT. Wood could only be detected using ultrasonography, and then only when fragments were >0.5 mm in size. Plain radiography and CT were almost equally accurate in visualizing metal and graphite. MRI was the least useful imaging technique. CONCLUSIONS: In cases with suspected foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region, CT seems to be the optimal initial imaging study. Wood, however, could only be detected using ultrasonography.
Authors: Georg Eggers; Thomas Welzel; Damir Mukhamadiev; René Wörtche; Stefan Hassfeld; Joachim Mühling Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Asim F Choudhri; Bhumin J Patel; Margaret E Phillips; Katie A Mills; Matthew T Whitehead; James C Fleming Journal: Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.746
Authors: Jan Oliver Voss; Nadine Thieme; Christian Doll; Stefan Hartwig; Nicolai Adolphs; Max Heiland; Jan-Dirk Raguse Journal: Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr Date: 2018-04-24