| Literature DB >> 26317084 |
Young-Kyun Kim1, Pil-Young Yun1, Jong-Hwa Kim1, Ji-Young Lee1, Won Lee2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP), Quantitative sensory testing (QST), and thermography as diagnostic methods for nerve injury.Entities:
Keywords: Nerve injury; Quantitative Sensory Testing; Somatosensory Evoked Potentials; Thermography
Year: 2015 PMID: 26317084 PMCID: PMC4544621 DOI: 10.1186/s40902-015-0013-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg ISSN: 2288-8101
Detailed information of the patients
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 49 | M | Rt | 32 | M |
| 2 | 49 | F | Lt | 16 | M |
| 3 | 51 | F | Lt | 16 | R |
| 4 | 55 | M | Lt | 17 | M |
| 5 | 50 | M | Rt | 19 | M |
| 6 | 54 | M | Rt | 12 | M |
| 7 | 52 | F | Rt | 2 | R |
| 8 | 52 | F | Rt | 13 | R |
| 9 | 56 | F | Lt | 9 | R |
| 10 | 69 | F | Rt | 7 | M |
| 11 | 32 | F | Rt | 12 | M |
| 12 | 50 | F | Lt | 2 | M |
| 13 | 49 | F | Lt | 73 | M |
| 14 | 45 | M | Lt | 12 | R |
| 15 | 37 | F | Rt | 7 | R |
| 16 | 50 | M | Lt | 5 | R |
| 17 | 51 | M | Lt | 5 | R |
Period: from implant placement time to assessment time (month)
Rt: right, Lt: left, M: maintained, R: removed
Figure 1SEP equipment. Nicolet EDX-Synergy.
Figure 2Methods of QST measurement. A: Neurometer CPT/C. B: Attach the electrode at the inspected area. C: The patient was asked to stop pressing the button when he or she detected minute electrical stimulation, vibration, pain, and/or heat from electrical stimulation using R-CPT (rapid-current perception threshold) mode.
Figure 3Method for taking an image with thermography. A: Thermography IRIS-5000. B: Taking the image with thermography. C: Temperature of the areas of interest was determined using saved images.
Figure 4Thermography showed that the temperature differences at the region of interest No. 2(chin area) and 3(lower lip area) were 0.74 and 1.02.
Mean latency of N20 between both sides of inferior alveolar nerve area showed that the abnormal side delayed more than the normal side (p > .05)
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 16.85 | 16.13 | |
| 2 | 15.83 | 15.13 | |
| 3 | 16.5 | 16.35 | |
| 4 | 16.65 | 16.08 | |
| 5 | 16.33 | 16.13 | |
| 6 | 15.55 | 15.5 | |
| 7 | 14.85 | 14.25 | |
| 8 | 15.48 | 15.35 | |
| 9 | 16.65 | 16.03 | |
| 10 | 17.5 | 16.6 | |
| 11 | 16.08 | 15.2 | |
| 12 | 17.4 | 17.58 | |
| 13 | 16.42 | 16.6 | |
| 14 | 16.15 | 15.25 | |
| 15 | 15.28 | 15.25 | |
| 16 | 16.15 | 17.33 | |
| 17 | 15.35 | 15.03 | |
| Mean | 16.18 | 15.87 | 0.163 |
Mann–Whitney test was performed
Comparison of current perception threshold
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 2KHz | 286.2 ± 209.6 | 142.9 ± 88.2 | .002* |
| 250Hz | 156.4 ± 263.4 | 39.8 ± 35.4 | .039* |
| 5Hz | 81.6 ± 120.8 | 28.9 ± 25.7 | .026* |
Mann–Whitney test was performed
*Indicates statistically significant difference (p < .05)
Temperature differences (TD) between both side were 0.55°C(absolute TD). P > .05
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −0.06 | 0.06 | |
| 2 | 0.73 | 0.73 | |
| 3 | −0.38 | 0.38 | |
| 4 | −0.18 | 0.18 | |
| 5 | −0.67 | 0.67 | |
| 6 | −0.08 | 0.08 | |
| 7 | 0.18 | 0.18 | |
| 8 | 1.13 | 1.13 | |
| 9 | 1.24 | 1.24 | |
| 10 | 1.02 | 1.02 | |
| 11 | −0.50 | 0.5 | |
| 12 | 0.19 | 0.19 | |
| 13 | 1.88 | 0.88 | |
| 14 | −0.37 | 0.37 | |
| 15 | 0.29 | 0.29 | |
| 16 | 0.09 | 0.09 | |
| 17 | −1.39 | 1.39 | |
| Mean | 0.18 | 0.55 | 0.478 |