Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and ultrasonography with two types of probes in the detection of opaque and non-opaque foreign bodies

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of intra-oral and extra-oral ultrasonographic (US) examinations performed with linear and convex probes in the detection of opaque and non-opaque foreign bodies (FBs) located in the maxillofacial area.Materials and methods: Thirteen different type of FBs were inserted into a sheep’s head: a) on the external bone surface of mandible (between the mandibular corpus and masseter muscle), b) in the intrinsic muscular tissue (in the dorsum of the tongue) and c) in the hollow structures (into the maxillary sinus of the sheep’s head). The FBs in muscle tissue were scanned intra-orally whereas FBs in bone external bone surface of mandible and in maxillary sinus were scanned both intra-orally and extra-orally. The sensitivity of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and US imaging methods in detection of FBs were compared for FBs on the bone surface and in the muscular tissue.Results: The intra-observer kappa coefficients provided identical values of 0.236 for the extra-oral convex probe, 0.461 for the intra-oral linear probe for overall FBs detection, which indicated notably poor to fair intra-observer agreement. The inter-observer agreement showed a poor agreement for the extra-oral use of linear probe (0.341 and 0.393) and extra-oral use of convex probe (0.319 and 0.335), However, a fair agreement was determined for use of probe intra-orally (0.530 and 0.534). Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of the CBCT was higher than the US regarding the visualization of FBs in the bone tissue.Conclusion: US with a linear probe should be the first choice for the detection of the low-radiodensity FBs, which are entrapped in the soft tissue. However, CBCT is a more sensitive technique for the visualization of FBs in air and bone tissue compared to the US, particularly for the diagnosis of high-radiodensity FBs.

The Effect of Different Finish Line Designs and Material Types on the Periodontal Response of Single Crown Restoration: A 3-year Follow-up Study

“…1,10 The extra-oral and intra-oral linear probes were employed by Aras et al and Demiralp to find FBs. 1,5 In this study, we observed that the data of the linear and hockey probes are similar. Additionally, there was no difference between the measurements visualized by both probes and their actual dimensions (p>0.05).…”

“…However, the first line of defense for detecting low-radiodensity foreign entities confined in soft tissue should be US using a linear probe. 5 Ultrasonography is a great alternative if the missing oral foreign body is in the easily accessible superficial soft tissue of the head and neck region. But, it might not be appropriate for FBs located in deep areas or air-filled cavities.…”

Ultrasonography in soft-tissue foreign-body detection: a phantom study

“…In the study of Demiralp et al on FBs in intraoral localization conducted with phantoms, they reported a hypoechoic halo around the FBs in the case of chicken bone fragment, root, stone, tooth enamel, amalgam, and orthodontic wire stab [11]. In our study, only the chicken bone fragment was examined among these FBs, and we did not observe a hypoechoic halo around it.…”

Removal of a metallic foreign body from the tongue of three horses

“…A combination of radiography and ultrasonography (oral and/or an inter‐mandibular approach) often provides the most accurate information regarding the presence and localisation of foreign bodies in the tongue. If the diagnosis of a suspected foreign body in the mouth is not possible with either radiography or ultrasound, a CT or MRI examination of the head should be considered (Chiyonobu et al 2015; Demiralp et al 2018).…”