Artefact &amp; Classification

Choudhary, Swati; saxena, aditya; Abhishek, Abhishek; Gulati, Gunjan; Khare, ankita; Prasad, Krishna deo

doi:10.21276/sjmps.2016.2.6.4

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should paying more attention to slide preparation protocols and proficient performance during the biopsy procedure (4). Artifacts can change normal morphological and cytological characteristics which can lead to inaccurate diagnosis (4,8). Therefore, full knowledge of these artifacts is critical for taking preventive measures (9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequency of Different Types of Artifacts among Oral and Maxillofacial Histopathological Slides in Zanjan Dental School from 2015 to 2017

Rafieyan¹,

Farsadeghi²,

Firoozi³

et al. 2019

Avicenna J Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Artifact refers to an artificial or replaced structure in histopathological slides as a result of an extraneous factor. Given the influence of identification and awareness of the types of artifacts on the correct diagnosis, the frequency of artifacts in oral and maxillofacial histopathological slides was assessed. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, census method was used to assess 119 oral and maxillofacial histopathological slides retrieved from the archive of Zanjan Dental School from 2015 to 2017. Artifacts were divided into three groups arising from the surgeon's performance, technician's performance, and specimen transfer to the laboratory. Statistical analysis of data was performed using an independent t test in SPSS software version 18.0. Results: The average numbers of artifacts arising from the surgeon's performance, technician's performance, and specimen transfer to the laboratory were 3.90 ± 1.14, 3.08 ± 1.10, and 0, respectively. The mean number of artifacts arising from the surgeon's performance was significantly higher compared to the other two groups (P < 0.01) and the most common ones included fragmentation, split, and tear. The most common artifacts arising from the technician's performance were fold/wrinkle, chaffer, and floater. There was no artifact arising from specimen transfer to the laboratory. Conclusions: The results indicated a high frequency of various artifacts in the studied slides. Therefore, paying more attention to slide preparation protocols and proficient performance during the biopsy procedure as well as further cooperation between the surgeon, pathologist, and laboratory technician can be useful in reducing the frequency of artifacts and achieving a better diagnosis.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequency of Different Types of Artifacts among Oral and Maxillofacial Histopathological Slides in Zanjan Dental School from 2015 to 2017

Rafieyan¹,

Farsadeghi²,

Firoozi³

et al. 2019

Avicenna J Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cellulose may also be faced as tissue contaminant produced by the gauze used, or may have been produced due to contamination of the cutting board during sample preparation. Bathing or washing of all instruments and covering the dissection board with separate paper slips are the suitable that way avoid this problem [7].…”

Section: Cellulose Contaminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Artifacts and Remedies in Histological Preparations

Al-Kinani

2024

ABB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of the accuracy of preparing biological specimen as histological sections that can be examined under a microscope lies in reflecting a true image of the tissue that includes all its components, which are used in scientific research or for the purpose of diagnosing various diseases of the body. Despite this, some cellular structures within the tissue may suffer from some alterations that result from the appearance of defects during any stage of preparing these microscopic sections, which alter or interfere with the precise cellular structures and morphology that constitute the tissue and thus give a different image for tissue features and cause confusion in the work histopathologist in the diagnosis. There are several reasons that can cause a misdiagnosis of the sample that occurs during the surgical separation process or after separation during the stages of microscopic preparation techniques from fixation stage, tissue processing, embedding or microtomy, staining until mounting procedures. The constant need to identify these defects and their causes in addition to try to reduce them is one of the biggest challenges evident in pathology laboratories. Therefore, this study aims to review the most common defects that occur in any stage of tissue processing, with an explanation of their causes and appropriate ways to avoid them.

show abstract