Computed Tomography evaluation of maxillofacial injuries

Prasad, Vinay; Khanal, Ashish

doi:10.3126/jcmsn.v12i4.16372

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Imaging of the maxillofacial region can be challenging in trauma patients and conventional radiographs are becoming less popular as a result of the availability of computer tomography. 40,41 The specialists who reviewed the radiographs agreed that most of these radiographs were inappropriate for the diagnosis of maxillofacial fractures. This suggests that either maxillofacial fractures were incidental findings or that the attending clinician had requested inappropriate radiographic projections for the diagnosis of these fractures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and aetiological factors of maxillofacial trauma in a rural district hospital in the Eastern Cape

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

aim: To determine the prevalence, aetiological factors and demographic data of patients presenting with injuries sustained from maxillofacial trauma over a six month period at Zithulele Hospital. Materials and Methods: In a retrospective, descriptive study, data collected and analysed included records of all patients who had suffered maxillofacial trauma, their demographics, clinical features and the aetiology. The radiographic records were assessed by a maxillofacial surgeon and a radiologist for a diagnosis as well as gaining opinions regarding the types of fractures observed. results: A total of 239 patients sustained maxillofacial trauma. The most common aetiological factor was interpersonal violence (55%) followed by road traffic accidents (16%), falls (10%), animals (4%) and other causes (2%). The male to female ratio was 2.6:1 and the 18-24 years age group endured the most trauma. A total of 210 (88%) patients sustained soft tissue injuries while 29 (12%) experienced hard tissue injuries, with 39 fractures diagnosed. A total of 165 maxillofacial radiographs were assessed, 37% were diagnostically acceptable, 56% had poor diagnostic value and 7% had no diagnostic value. conclusion: Maxillofacial trauma is prevalent in rural parts of South Africa. Males aged 18-24 years are frequent victims, with interpersonal violence being the major aetiology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and aetiological factors of maxillofacial trauma in a rural district hospital in the Eastern Cape

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to describe the proposed procedure of the implant placement because only in that way can it be understood why it is important to have accurate geometrical models of the mandible fractures and plate implants. Treatment of mandible fractures was chosen as an example of the process because these kinds of fractures are very common [1,2] in today's clinical practice.…”

Section: Process Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the maxillofacial surgery for the treatment of mandibular fractures, reduction and fixation techniques are used [1,2]. The reduction of the bone fragments and their fixation is better performed when geometry and morphology of the bone and osteofixation material (plates, screws, rods, pins, etc.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mandible (lower jaw) is the largest and the strongest bone in the face and its shape is very complex [7,8]. Mandible fractures are common facial injuries treated by the oral and maxillofacial surgeons as described in [1,2]. These fractures can be grouped into the broad categories which are defined as unilateral fractures (double or multiple unilateral), bilateral fractures, fractures with contralateral condyle compromise, and bilateral condyle fractures with symphysis/anterior body compromise [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geometrical Models of Mandible Fracture and Plate Implant

Husain¹,

Rashid²,

Vitković³

et al. 2018

FU Mech Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the oral and maxillofacial surgery, there is a requirement to provide the best possible treatment for the patient with mandibular fractures. This treatment presumes application of reduction and fixation techniques for proper stabilization of the fracture site. The reduction of the bone fragments and their fixation is much better performed when geometry and morphology of the bone and osteofixation elements (e.g. plates) are properly defined. In this paper, a new healthcare procedure, which enables application of personalized plate implants for the fixation of the mandibular fractures, is presented. Geometrical models of mandible and plate implants, presented in this research, were created by means of the Method of Anatomical Features (MAF), which has been already applied to the creation of accurate geometrical models of various human bones, plates and fixators. By using such geometrically and anatomically accurate models, orthopedic and maxillofacial surgeons can better perform pre-operative tasks of simulating and planning the operation, as well as an intraoperative task of implanting the personalized plate into the patient body.

show abstract

“…Fractures of the face are categorized into mandibular and midface fractures. There may be isolated bone fractures or complex facial fractures [2]. Taking into consideration the anatomical sites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Added Value of Multislice Computerized Tomography in Evaluation of Maxillofacial Fractures.

Ragheb¹,

Solyman

Gafar

2019

Sohag Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As Regard fracture morphology, The maxillofacial fractures are often complex, so the imaging findings should be familiar to the clinicians. To diagnose maxillofacial fractures, several radiographic approaches have been utilized. Recently, Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) with three-dimensional (3D) and multiplanar reformation (MPR) become basic in fractures evaluation because of its higher sensitivity. Objective: The study purpose to 1-To study the number, extent, and degree of fractures displacement through the utilization of axial, coronal & 3D reformatted images. 2. Study the value of axial, coronal & 3D reformatted images in fractures recognition. Methodology: This study has been done through the collection of data from papers which has been searched upon PubMed from 2001 till 2017, the search is done including only the papers written in English language and collected data including maxillofacial region anatomy, a hint about the CT physics and injury presentation. Summary:The fracture is classified into orbital, facial and mandibular fractures and the facial fractures are sub-classified into upper, mid and lower face fractures. In complex midface fractured patients, it easy detects frontal and maxillary bones fractures and their displacement. In comparison with X-ray, Mandibular CT imaging, in particular, MDCT, It is highly sensitive in mandibular fracture detection, and provide excellent detail in detecting mandibular condyle fractures. and The coronal reconstruction has a superior role in the orbital and maxillary fractures detection. Conclusion: MDCT with (3D)and (MPR) images become a standard piece of fractures evaluation due to sensitivity of this imaging system for fracture.

show abstract

Computed Tomography evaluation of maxillofacial injuries

Cited by 5 publications

References 20 publications

Prevalence and aetiological factors of maxillofacial trauma in a rural district hospital in the Eastern Cape

Prevalence and aetiological factors of maxillofacial trauma in a rural district hospital in the Eastern Cape

Geometrical Models of Mandible Fracture and Plate Implant

The Added Value of Multislice Computerized Tomography in Evaluation of Maxillofacial Fractures.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About