پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,113 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,208 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 40,780,186 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,803,959 |
In vitro Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography Imaging Methods in the Evaluation of Artificial Mandible Intraosseous Lesions | ||
| Journal of Dentistry | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 22، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 72، آذر 2021، صفحه 198-205 اصل مقاله (630.24 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/dentjods.2021.87481.1264 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Numan DEDEOĞLU* ؛ Şuayip Burak Duman؛ Oğuzhan Altun؛ Buşra Arıkan | ||
| Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Statement of the Problem: Intraosseous lesions of jaws can be imaged by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and ultrasonography (USG). The knowledge of imaging features of these two methods about intraosseous jaw lesions is important for dental radiology. Purpose:The aim of this study is to evaluate artificial mandible intraosseous lesions by using CBCT and USG. Materials and Method:In this in vitro study, intraosseous lesionscontaining water, milk, olive oil, and liver were evaluated in 60 artificial mandibles by using CBCT and USG.Lesion sizes were compared between CBCT and USG. Lesion sizes were measured on the anterior-posterior, bucco-lingual, and superior-inferior sides. Hounsfield unit (HU) values of the lesions in CBCT images were compared between different materials. Echogenicity of the lesions were evaluated in USG images. One sample t and one-way Anova tests were used for the statistical analysis of the study (p ˂ 0.05). Results:In all size measurements of the lesions, mean CBCT values were statistically higher when compared with USG. In CBCT images, statistically difference was found between the HU values of lesions containing olive oil and other lesion contents. In USG images, echogenicity of water, milk and olive oil was found to be anechoic and the echogenicity of liver was found to be hypoechoic. Conclusion:CBCT was found to be more accurate than USG in measurement of the size of mandibular intraosseous lesions. According to the results of our study, it was thought that only oil content could be differentiated by using CBCT HU values.It was found that lesions with liquid and non-liquid contents could be differentiated with their echogenicity difference in USG images. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Intraosseous lesion؛ Cone beam computed tomography؛ Ultrasonography؛ Artificial mandible | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1] Danacı M. Mandibula and maxilla radiology. Turkey Clinics J Radiol-Special Topics. 2008; 1: 38-44.
[2] Harorlı A, Akgül HM, Yılmaz AB, Bilge OM, Dağıstan S, Çakur B, et al. Mouth, Tooth and Jaw Radiology. 1th ed. İstanbul: Nobel Medical Bookstores; 2014. p. 27.
[3] White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology. Principles and Interpretation. 7th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2014. p. 232-234.
[4] Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Bosmans H. Modern dental imaging: a review of the current technology and clinical applications in dental practice. Eur Radiol. 2010; 20: 2637-2655.
[5] Boeddinghaus R, Whyte A. Current concepts in maxillofacial imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 66: 396-418.
[6] Cassetta M, Di Carlo S, Pranno N, Stagnitti A, Pompa V, Pompa G. The use of high resolution magnetic resonance on 3.0-T system in the diagnosis and surgical planning of intraosseous lesions of the jaws: preliminary results of a retrospective study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012; 16: 2021-2028.
[7] De*Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GR. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 38: 609-625.
[8] Pauwels R, Stamatakis H, Bosmans H, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, Horner K, et al. The Sedentexct Project Consortium, Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24 Suppl A100: 94-99.
[9] Schulze D, Blessmann M, Pohlenz P, Wagner KW, Heiland M. Diagnostic criteria for the detection of mandibular osteomyelitis using cone-beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35: 232-235.
[10] Shii J, Nagasawa H, Wadamori T, Yamashiro M, Ishikawa H, Yamada T, et al. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of palatal tumors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999; 87: 39-43.
[11] Dayanand SM, Desai R, Reddy PB. Efficiency of ultrasonography in assessing cervical lymph node metastasis in oral carcinoma. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 1: 117-122.
[12] Howlett DC. High resolution ultrasound assessment of the parotid gland. Br J Radiol. 2003; 76: 271-277.
[13] Joshi PS, Pol J, Sudesh AS. Ultrasonography: A diagnostic modality for oral and maxillofacial diseases. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014; 5: 345-351.
[14] Nath P, Menon S, Suresh A, Archana S. Comparison of Ultrasonography with Conventional Radiography in Diagnosis of Zygomatic Complex Fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020; 19: 307-313.
[15] Sumer AP, DanaciM, Ozen Sandikci E, SumerM, Celenk P. Ultrasonography and Doppler ultrasonography in the evaluation of intraosseous lesions of the jaws. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009; 38: 23–27.
[16] Shahidi S, Shakibafard A, Zamiri B, Mokhtare MR, Houshyar M, Mahdian S. The feasibility of ultrasonography in defining the size of jaw osseous lesions. J Dent (Shiraz). 2015; 16: 335-344.
[17] Goel S, Nagendrareddy SG, Raju MS, Krishnojirao DR, Rastogi R, Mohan RP, et al. Ultrasonography with color Doppler and power Doppler in the diagnosis of periapical lesions. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2011; 21: 279-283.
[18] Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106: 106-114.
[19] Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, Schwartz SA, Schindler WG. Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod. 2007; 33: 1121-1132.
[20] Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van*Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanhe-usden S, Suetens P, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentom-axillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009; 71: 461-468.
[21] Kamburoğlu K, Kilic C, Ozen T, Horasan S. Accuracy of chemically created periapical lesion measurements using limited cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010; 39: 95–99.
[22] Kamburoğlu K, Yılmaz F, Gulsahi K, Gulen O, Gulsahi A. Change in periapical lesion and adjacent mucosal thickening dimensions one year after endodontic treatment: volumetric cone-beam computed tomography assessment. J Endod. 2017; 43: 218–224.
[23] Ahmad M, Jenny J, Downie M. Application of cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Aust Dent J. 2012; 57 Suppl 1: 82-94.
[24] Ahmad M, Freymiller E. Cone beam computed tomography: evaluation of maxillofacial pathology. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2010; 38: 41-47.
[25] Çağlayan F, Bayrakdar İŞ, Yılmaz AB. Çenelerde Görülen Kemik İçi Lezyonlarda Ultrasonografi Kullanımı. Türkiye Klinikleri Ağız Diş ve Çene Radyolojisi Özel Dergisi. 2016; 2: 36-39.
[26] Wakasugi-Sato N, Kodama M, Matsuo K, Yamamoto N, Oda M, Ishikawa A, et al. Advanced clinical usefulness of ultrasonography for diseases in oral and maxillofacial regions. Int J Dent. 2010; 2010: 639382.
[27] Prince CN, Annapurna CS, Sivaraj S, Ali IM. Ultrasound imaging in the diagnosis of periapical lesions. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2012; 4: S369-S372.
[28] Musu D, Cadeddu Dessalvi C, Shemesh H, Frenda MG, Mercuro G, Cotti E. Ultrasound examination for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions in bovine mandibles: an ex vivo study. Int Endod J 2020; 53: 1289-1298.
[29] Gundappa M, Ng SY, Whaites EJ. Comparison of ultra-sound, digital and conventional radiography in differentiating periapical lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35: 326-333.
[30] Bayrakdar IS, Yilmaz AB, Caglayan F, Ertas U, Gundogdu C, Gumussoy I. Cone beam computed tomography
and ultrasonography imaging of benign intraosseous jaw lesion: a prospective radiopathological study. Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 22: 1531-1539.
[31] Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, Yilmaz B, Ersoy AE. Determination of bone quality of 372 implant recipient sites using Hounsfield unit from computerized tomography: a clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008; 10: 238-244.
[32] Schaaf H, Streckbein P, Lendeckel S, Heidinger KS, Rehmann P, Boedeker RH, et al. Sinus lift augmentation using autogenous bone grafts and platelet-rich plasma: radiographic results. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106: 673-678.
[33] Crusoé-Rebello I, Oliveira C, Campos PSF, Azevedo RA, dos*Santos JN. Assessment of computerized tomography density patterns of ameloblastomas and keratocystic odontogenic tumors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108: 604–608.
[34] De Oliveira RCG, Leles CR, Normanha LM, Lindh C, Ribeiro-Rotta RF.Assessments of trabecular bone density at implant sites on CT images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105: 231-238.
[35] Marmulla R, Wortche R, Muhling J, Hassfeld S. Geometric accuracy of the NewTom 9000 Cone Beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005; 34: 28-31.
[36] Chau AC, Fung K. Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107: 559-565.
[37] Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010; 39: 323-335.
[38] Buzatu R, Nagib R, Dinca, M, Vâlceanu AS, Szuhanek CA. Midpalatal suture morphology and bone density evaluation after orthodontic expansion: a cone-bean computed tomography study in correlation with aesthetic parameters. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2018; 59: 803-809.
[39] El-Silimy O, Corney C. The value of sonography in the management of cystic neck lesions. J Laryngol Otol. 1993; 107: 245-251.
[40] Ishikawa H, Ishii Y, Ono T, Makimoto K, Yamamoto K, Torizuka K. Evaluation of gray-scale ultrasonography in the investigation of oral and neck mass lesions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983; 41: 775-781.
[41] Oeppen RS, Gibson D, Brennan PA. An update on the use of ultrasound imaging in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 48: 412-418.
[42] Caglayan F, Bayrakdar IS. The intraoral ultrasonography in dentistry. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018; 21: 125-133. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,264 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 956 |
||
