Document Type : Original Article
Oral and Maxillofacial surgeon, school of dentistry, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Assistant professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, school of dentistry, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Introduction: Knowledge of effective imaging methods to determine the metallic foreign bodies is essential to better manage patients with trauma injuries. The study aimed to evaluate of visibility of jaw bone particles adjacent to metallic foreign bodies related to the explosion in the maxillofacial region by panoramic imaging, Computed Tomography (CT), Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), and Ultrasonography (US).
Methods: Ten fresh sheep’s head was used in this in vitro study. Metal foreign objects with dimensions of 1×10×10 mm, 1×5×5 mm, and 1×3×3 mm were placed in the infraorbital area on the right were used. In each imaging, just one of the iron bodies is applied at the center. Then nine parts of the mandibular bone with dimensions of 1×10×10 mm, 1×5×5 mm, and 1×3×3 mm (3 sets, containing all sizes) were placed 5, 10, 20 mm upper (cephalic), inferior (caudal), and posterior to a metallic foreign body, respectively. The same procedure was repeated for all three sizes of metals. Panoramic imaging, computed tomography, cone-beam computed tomography, and Ultrasonography were obtained by were observed by an oral and maxillofacial radiologist and a general radiologist.
Results: CBCT and CT had good visibility in detections of bone particles adjacent to metallic foreign bodies. There were no significant differences between CBCT and CT regarding detections of bone particles adjacent to metallic foreign bodies (8.56±1.54 and 8.46±2.15 and P=0.56). Panoramic view and US poor visibility in detections of bone particles adjacent to metallic foreign bodies. The mean of number bone detection in the panoramic view was 3.47±1.41 and in the US was 4.06±1.74 (P=0.23). There were significant differences between panoramic view and the US with CBCT and CT regarding detections of bone particles adjacent to metallic foreign bodies (P<0.001). The results were the same regarding distances of bones to metallic foreign bodies.
Conclusion: The results showed that CBCT and CT are effective methods as the first option in detecting bone particles adjacent to metallic foreign bodies in the infraorbital area of the Maxillofacial Region.