Diagnostic Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Identification of Foreign Bodies in the Head and Neck Region
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 36 No. 4 (2018),
15 April 2019
,
Page 136-139
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v36i4.26210
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to assess the identification of traumatic foreign bodies in the head and neck region using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Methods In this study, samples (1×1×0.1 cm) were fabricated from 6 different types of materials commonly found in various head and face traumas. These materials included iron, glass, stone, wood, asphalt, and tooth. They were located in 3 different areas, including the tongue, airway, and vestibule of 3 sheep heads. Ten scans were acquired from these materials embedded in different regions. A total of 180 images were analyzed by 2 observers and rated in terms of visual clarity of the foreign body. The results were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results In 100% of images, stone, asphalt, and glass were observed in all 3 areas with high resolution. On the other hand, 100% of images were unclear in all evaluated areas with metal artifacts. Tooth images were found to be excellent in 100% of cases in the muscle and airway regions and 80% of cases in the vestibule region (unclear in 20% of cases). However, wood was not detected in 100% of images from the tongue and vestibule regions. It was not detected on 60% of images from the airway, while it was found on 40% of images with low resolution.
Conclusion CBCT detected and located all opaque objects such as iron, glass, stone, asphalt, and tooth. However, it showed limited potential in detecting radiolucent objects such as wood- Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
- Foreign bodies
- Maxillofacial Injuries
How to Cite
References
Oikarinen KS, Nieminen TM, Makarainen H, Pyhtinen J. 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. 1993 Apr;22(2):119-24.
Clark JC, Jones JE. Tooth fragments embedded in soft tissue: a diagnostic consideration. Quintessence Int. 1987 Sep;18(9):653-4.
Dort JC, Robertson D. Nonmetallic foreign bodies of the skull base: a diagnostic challenge. J Otolaryngol. 1995 Feb;24(1):69-72.
Ahmad M, Jenny J, Downie M. Application of cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Aust Dent J. 2012 Mar;57 Suppl 1:82-94.
Hunter TB, Taljanovic MS. Glossary of medical devices and procedures: abbreviations, acronyms, and definitions. RadioGraphics. 2003 Jan;23(1):195-213.
BD HT. Radiologic guide to medical devices and foreign bodies. Mosby; 1994. p. 435-41.
Al-Zahrani S, Kremli M, Saadeddin M, Ikram A, Takroni T, Zeidan H. Ultrasonography detection of radiolucent foreign bodies in soft tissue compared to computed tomography scan. Ann Saudi Med. 1995 Mar;15(2):110-2.
Venter NG, Jamel N, Marques RG, Djahjah F, Mendonca Lde S. [Evaluation of radiological methods for detection of wood foreign body in animal model]. Acta Cir Bras. 2005;20 Suppl 1:34-41.
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 Feb;39(2):72-8.
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 Summer;8(3):166-71.
Shepherd M, Lee J, McGahon MC. Diagnostic modalities for the detection of soft tissue foreign bodies. Adv Emerg Nurs J.. 2007 Oct/Dec;29(4):297-308.
Lari S, Shokri A, Hosseinipanah S, Rostami S, Sabounchi S. Comparative sensitivity assessment of cone beam computed tomography and digital radiography for detecting foreign bodies. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016 Mar;17(3):224-9.
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 Feb;44(1):18-24.
Bray PW, Mahoney JL, Campbell JP. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in the diagnosis of foreign bodies in the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 1995;20(4):661-6.
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(4):20140229.
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 Aug;13(4):e37265.
Eggers G, Muhling J, Hofele C. Clinical use of navigation based on cone-beam computer tomography in maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Sep;47(6):450-4.
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 Apr;11(4):TC15-TC19.
- Abstract Viewed: 266 times
- PDF Downloaded: 211 times