Literature DB >> 28571230

Comparison of Ultrasonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Detection of Foreign Bodies in Maxillofacial Region.

Abbas Shokri1, Mohammadreza Jamalpour2, Behrouz Jafariyeh3, Jalal Poorolajal4, Negar Kanouni Sabet5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Foreign Bodies (FBs) entrapped in the maxillofacial region have a high prevalence due to trauma and accidents. Accurate localization of FBs and verifying their type and size are critical to assist the surgeon in their fast retrieval with minimal tissue damage. AIM: To assess and compare the imaging modalities including MRI, ultrasonography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) for detection of different types of FBs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, four types of FBs including pieces of normal glass, barium glass, wood and pebbles with equal sizes were placed randomly in two sheep heads in different locations such as upper lip, maxillary sinus and body of mandible as FBs and subjected to MRI, ultrasound and CBCT. The images were interpreted by expert observers and the data was analysed using the stata 11 software, kappa test and chi-square test.
RESULTS: Sensitivity of CBCT, MRI and ultrasound for detecting foreign bodies was 79.19%, 20.83% and 33.33%, respectively. None of the imaging modalities could clearly visualize wooden FBs. Among different FBs, pebbles and barium glass were detected more accurately by radiographic imaging technique. The sensitivity of CBCT, ultrasound and MRI for pebbles was 100%, 33.33% and 16.67%, respectively. The sensitivity of CBCT, ultrasound and MRI for barium glass was 100%, 33.33% and 41.69%, respectively. The sensitivity of CBCT, ultrasound and MRI for wood was 33.33%, 33.33% and 16.67%, respectively. Specificity of all three imaging modalities was 100%. Diagnostic accuracy of all three imaging modalities was higher for detection of FBs in the upper lip than those in the body of mandible, and FBs in the latter location had higher detection accuracy than those in the maxillary sinus.
CONCLUSION: Among the three imaging modalities, CBCT had the highest diagnostic sensitivity for the examined FBs. The highest diagnostic sensitivity was noted for pebbles and barium glass.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Radiology; Sheep heads; X-ray imaging

Year:  2017        PMID: 28571230      PMCID: PMC5449876          DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/24523.9736

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res        ISSN: 0973-709X


  16 in total

Review 1.  Imaging modalities in wounds and superficial skin infections.

Authors:  Robert B Blankenship; Todd Baker
Journal:  Emerg Med Clin North Am       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.264

2.  X-ray-based volumetric imaging of foreign bodies: a comparison of computed tomography and digital volume tomography.

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

3.  Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography.

Authors:  M H Aras; O Miloglu; C Barutcugil; M Kantarci; E Ozcan; A Harorli
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Comparison of ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detection of acute wooden foreign bodies in the canine manus.

Authors:  Christopher P Ober; Jeryl C Jones; Martha Moon Larson; Otto I Lanz; Stephen R Werre
Journal:  Vet Radiol Ultrasound       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.363

5.  Ultrasound versus radiography in the detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies.

Authors:  D E Manthey; A B Storrow; J M Milbourn; B J Wagner
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 5.721

6.  Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study.

Authors:  R Javadrashid; D F Fouladi; M Golamian; P Hajalioghli; M H Daghighi; Z Shahmorady; M T Niknejad
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  Tooth fragment embedded in the lower lip after dental trauma: case reports.

Authors:  Alessandro Costa da Silva; Márcio de Moraes; Eider Guimarães Bastos; Roger William Fernandes Moreira; Luis Augusto Passeri
Journal:  Dent Traumatol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.333

8.  Nonmetallic foreign bodies of the skull base: a diagnostic challenge.

Authors:  J C Dort; D Robertson
Journal:  J Otolaryngol       Date:  1995-02

9.  Detection of orbital foreign bodies with computed tomography: current limits.

Authors:  E Tate; H Cupples
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  The role of ultrasonography in detection and localization of radiolucent foreign body in soft tissues of extremities.

Authors:  D Shrestha; U K Sharma; R Mohammad; D Dhoju
Journal:  JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc       Date:  2009 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.406

View more
  4 in total

1.  Incidence, Size and Orientation of Maxillary Sinus Septa-A Retrospective Clinical Study.

Authors:  Laura Andreea Schiller; Horia Mihail Barbu; Stefania Andrada Iancu; Silviu Brad
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-24       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Detection of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region with spiral computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Masoud Abolvardi; Marzieh Akhlaghian; Hadi Hamidi Shishvan; Farivar Dastan
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2020-12-15

3.  Retained large glass fragments for over 40 years in the maxillofacial region.

Authors:  Woong Gyu Na; Hyoseob Lim; Sung Hoon Koh; Sung Won Jung
Journal:  Arch Craniofac Surg       Date:  2018-03-20

4.  Determining a reliably visible and inexpensive surface fiducial marker for use in MRI: a research study in a busy Australian Radiology Department.

Authors:  Maree T Izatt; Deborah Lees; Susan Mills; Caroline A Grant; J Paige Little
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.