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
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
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 mo-dalities. US was the most accurate technique for detecting wooden materials, and CBCT was the best modality for detecting all other materials, regard-less 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.
Abstract
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 mo-dalities. US was the most accurate technique for detecting wooden materials, and CBCT was the best modality for detecting all other materials, regard-less 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.
참고문헌 (22)
- Reginelli A, "Foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region: assessment with multidetector computed tomography", Semin Ultrasound CT MRI, 36, pp.2~7 (2015)[DOI]
- Valizadeh S, "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, 13, pp.e37265~ (2016)
- Aras MH, "Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography", Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 39, pp.72~78 (2010)[DOI]
- Omezli MM, "The prevalence of foreign bodies in jaw bones on panoramic radiography", Indian J Dent, 6, pp.185~189 (2015)[DOI]
- Ober CP, "Comparison of ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detection of acute wooden foreign bodies in the canine manus", Vet Radiol Ultrasound, 49, pp.411~418 (2008)[DOI]
- Eggers G, "Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography", Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 34, pp.74~79 (2005)[DOI]
- Haghnegahdar A, "Comparison between computed tomography and ultrasonography in detecting foreign bodies regarding their composition and depth: an in vitro study", J Dent (Shiraz), 17, pp.177~184 (2016)
- Oikarinen KS, "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, 22, pp.119~124 (1993)[DOI]
- Kaviani F, "Detection of foreign bodies by spiral computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in maxillofacial regions", J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects, 8, pp.166~171 (2014)
- Javadrashid R, "Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study", Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 44, pp.20140229~ (2015)[DOI]
- Gomaa M, "Ultrasonography versus radiography in detection of different foreign bodies in a cadaveric calf thigh specimen", Res J Vet Pract, 3, pp.83~88 (2015)[DOI]
- Holmes PJ, "Intraoperative imaging techniques: a guide to retrieval of foreign bodies", Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 100, pp.614~618 (2005)[DOI]
- White SC, "Oral radiology, principles and interpretations", pp.111~220 (2014), Mosby
- Javadrashid R, "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, 68, pp.194~201 (2017)[DOI]
- Ginsburg MJ, "Detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies by plain radiography, xerography, computed tomography, and ultrasonography", Ann Emerg Med, 19, pp.701~703 (1990)[DOI]
- Roobottom CA, "The detection of foreign bodies in soft tissue--comparison of conventional and digital radiography", Clin Radiol, 49, pp.330~332 (1994)[DOI]
- Ganguly R, "Accuracy of linear measurement in the Galileos cone beam computed tomography under simulated clinical conditions", Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 40, pp.299~305 (2011)[DOI]
- Lari SS, "Comparative sensitivity assessment of cone beam computed tomography and digital radiography for detecting foreign bodies", J Contemp Dent Pract, 17, pp.224~229 (2016)[DOI]
- Anderson MA, "Diagnosis and treatment of retained foreign bodies in the hand", Am J Surg, 144, pp.63~67 (1982)[DOI]
- Krimmel M, "Wooden foreign bodies in facial injury: a radiological pitfall", Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 30, pp.445~447 (2001)[DOI]
- Specht CS, "Orbitocranial wooden foreign body diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging. Dry wood can be isodense with air and orbital fat by computed tomography", Surv Ophthalmol, 36, pp.341~344 (1992)[DOI]
- Bushong SC, "Radiologic science for technologists: physics, biology, and protection" (2013), Elsevier Mosby