Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제50권4호
  • /
  • Pages.291-298
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Abolvardi, Masoud (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, AJA University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Akhlaghian, Marzieh (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Shishvan, Hadi Hamidi (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, AJA University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Dastan, Farivar (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University)
  • 투고 : 2020.04.01
  • 심사 : 2020.08.18
  • 발행 : 2020.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The detection and exact localization of penetrating foreign bodies are crucial for the appropriate management of patients with dentoalveolar trauma. This study compared the efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and spiral computed tomography (CT) scans for the detection of different foreign bodies composed of 5 frequently encountered materials in 2 sizes. The effect of the location of the foreign bodies on their visibility was also analyzed. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, metal, tooth, stone, glass, and plastic particles measuring 1×1×1 mm and 2×2×2 mm were prepared. They were implanted in a sheep's head in the tongue muscle, nasal cavity, and at the interface of the mandibular cortex and soft tissue. CBCT and spiral CT scans were taken and the visibility of foreign bodies was scored by 4 skilled maxillofacial radiologists who were blinded to the location and number of foreign bodies. Results: CT and CBCT were equally accurate in visualizing metal, stone, and tooth particles of both sizes. However, CBCT was better for detecting glass particles in the periosteum. Although both imaging modalities visualized plastic particles poorly, CT was slightly better for detecting plastic particles, especially the smaller ones. Conclusion: Considering the lower patient radiation dose and cost, CBCT can be used with almost equal accuracy as CT for detecting foreign bodies of different compositions and sizes in multiple maxillofacial regions. However, CT performed better for detecting plastic particles.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Valizadeh S, Pouraliakbar H, Kiani L, Safi Y, Alibakhshi L. 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 2016; 13: e37265.
  2. Abdinian M, Aminian M, Seyyedkhamesi S. 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. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 44: 18-24. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2018.44.1.18
  3. Lari SS, Shokri A, Hosseinipanah SM, Rostami S, Sabounchi SS. Comparative sensitivity assessment of cone beam computed tomography and digital radiography for detecting foreign bodies. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17: 224-9. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1831
  4. Valizadeh S, Alibakhshi L, Ahsaie MG, Kazemi S, Vasegh Z. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in identification of foreign bodies in the head and neck region. J Dent Sch Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci 2018; 36: 136-9.
  5. Eggers G, Mukhamadiev D, Hassfeld S. Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005; 34: 74-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/22475468
  6. Shokri A, Jamalpour M, Jafariyeh B, Poorolajal J, Sabet NK. Comparison of ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging and cone beam computed tomography for detection of foreign bodies in maxillofacial region. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11: TC15-9.
  7. Kaviani F, Javad Rashid R, Shahmoradi Z, Gholamian M. Detection of foreign bodies by spiral computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in maxillofacial regions. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2014; 8: 166-71.
  8. Schnider N, Reichart PA, Bornstein MM. Intraoral foreign bodies detected 40 years after a car accident using cone beam computed tomography. Quintessence Int 2012; 43: 741-5.
  9. Ginsburg MJ, Ellis GL, Flom LL. Detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies by plain radiography, xerography, computed tomography, and ultrasonography. Ann Emerg Med 1990; 19: 701-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(05)82483-7
  10. Kadir S, Aronow S, Davis KR. The use of computerized tomography in the detection of intra-orbital foreign bodies. Comput Tomogr 1977; 1: 151-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8235(77)90037-0
  11. Shishvan HH, Ebrahimnejad H. A study on the ability of panoramic, CT, Cone-beam CT, MRI and ultrasonography in detecting different foreign-bodies in the maxillofacial region (an in-vitro study). Electron J Gen Med 2018; 15: em16.
  12. Javadrashid R, Golamian M, Shahrzad M, Hajalioghli P, Shahmorady Z, Fouladi DF, et al. 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 2017; 68: 194-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2015.09.011
  13. Javadrashid R, Fouladi DF, Golamian M, Hajalioghli P, Daghighi MH, Shahmorady Z, et al. Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140229. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140229
  14. Gomaa M, Abdelaal A. Ultrasonography versus radiography in detection of different foreign bodies in a cadaveric calf thigh specimen. Res J Vet Pract 2015; 3: 83-8. https://doi.org/10.14737/journal.rjvp/2015/3.4.83.88
  15. Kullman L, Al Sane M. Guidelines for dental radiography immediately after a dento-alveolar trauma, a systematic literature review. Dent Traumatol 2012; 28: 193-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.2011.01099.x
  16. Javadrashid R, Kaviany F, Shahmorady Z, Niknamy M, Golamian M, Sadrarhami S, et al. Evaluation of the result of diagnostic of Spiral computed tomography comparing with cone beam computed tomography in diagnostic of foreign body in the orbit. J Am Sci 2013; 9(7S): 94-8.
  17. Krimmel M, Cornelius CP, Stojadinovic S, Hoffmann J, Reinert S. Wooden foreign bodies in facial injury: a radiological pitfall. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 30: 445-7. https://doi.org/10.1054/ijom.2001.0109
  18. Ober CP, Jones JC, Larson MM, Lanz OI, Werre SR. Comparison of ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detection of acute wooden foreign bodies in the canine manus. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49: 411-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2008.00399.x
  19. Popescu R, Dobrovat B, Nemtoi A, Ladunca O, Haba D. The importance of CT imaging for detecting traumatic intraorbitar and maxillofacial foreign bodies. Rom Neurosurg 2011; 18: 476-82.
  20. Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarci M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 72-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/68589458
  21. Eggers G, Mühling J, Hofele C. Clinical use of navigation based on cone-beam computer tomography in maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 47: 450-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.04.034