Öz
Purpose
To provide information on the sonographic properties of different foreign bodies and dental materials to help with diagnosis.
Materials & Methods
The investigation contained 10 various dental materials and foreign bodies that were consisting of composite, glass ionomer cement, gutta percha, suture, wooden, stone, canal file, acrylic, alginate, and silicone impression material. The objects were embedded to chicken meat and imaged using ultrasonography (USG). Their visibility and posterior acoustic behaviors were evaluated by both hockey and linear transducers. The actual sizes of this objects and measured dimensions by transducers were compared.
Results
Only gutta percha could not be distinguished in chicken meat. No difference was observed between the measurements made with the hockey and linear transducers and the actual size.
Conclusion
USG is a useful method for detecting and measuring foreign bodies and dental materials in soft tissues.
Anahtar Kelimeler
hockey transducer linear transducer ultrasound dental material foreign body
Kaynakça
- 1. Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarci M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:72-78.
- 2. Eggers G, Mukhamadiev D, Hassfeld S. Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:74-79.
- 3. Shokri A, Jamalpour M, Jafariyeh B, Poorolajal J, Sabet NK. Comparison of Ultrasonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Detection of Foreign Bodies in Maxillofacial Region. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:TC15-TC19.
- 4. Abolvardi, M., Akhlaghian, M., Shishvan, H. H., & Dastan, F. (2020). Detection of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region with spiral computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. Imaging Science in Dentistry, 50(4), 291.
- 5. Demiralp, K. Ö., Orhan, K., Çakmak, E. Ş. K., Görürgöz, C., & Bayrak, S. (2018). Comparison of cone beam computed tomography and ultrasonography with two types of probes in the detection of opaque and non-opaque foreign bodies. Medical ultrasonography.
- 6. Tina L, Johan KM. An Inventory of Current Available Ultrasound Devices for Dental Use. Open Dent J 2015;9:319-329.
- 7. Heggie JC, Liddell NA, Maher KP. Applied imaging technology. 4th ed. Melbourne: St. Vincent’s Hospital; 2001.
- 8. Davis J, Czerniski B, Au A, Adhikari S, Farrell I, Fields JM. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in retained soft tissue foreign bodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22:777-787.
- 9. Panigrahi R, Dash SK, Palo N, Priyadarshi A, Sahu SK, Biswal MR. Foreign Body Detection in Musculoskeletal Injuries: A In Vitro Blinded Study Comparing sensitivity among Digital radiography, Ultrasonography, CT and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Musculoskeletal Regeneration. 2015;2:e649.
- 10. Valizadeh S, Pouraliakbar H, Kiani L, Safi Y, Alibakhshi L. Evaluation of Visibility of Foreign Bodies in the Maxillofacial Region: Comparison of Computed Tomography, Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Iran J Radiol 2016;13:e37265.
Öz
Kaynakça
- 1. Aras MH, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, Kantarci M, Ozcan E, Harorli A. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:72-78.
- 2. Eggers G, Mukhamadiev D, Hassfeld S. Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:74-79.
- 3. Shokri A, Jamalpour M, Jafariyeh B, Poorolajal J, Sabet NK. Comparison of Ultrasonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Detection of Foreign Bodies in Maxillofacial Region. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:TC15-TC19.
- 4. Abolvardi, M., Akhlaghian, M., Shishvan, H. H., & Dastan, F. (2020). Detection of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region with spiral computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. Imaging Science in Dentistry, 50(4), 291.
- 5. Demiralp, K. Ö., Orhan, K., Çakmak, E. Ş. K., Görürgöz, C., & Bayrak, S. (2018). Comparison of cone beam computed tomography and ultrasonography with two types of probes in the detection of opaque and non-opaque foreign bodies. Medical ultrasonography.
- 6. Tina L, Johan KM. An Inventory of Current Available Ultrasound Devices for Dental Use. Open Dent J 2015;9:319-329.
- 7. Heggie JC, Liddell NA, Maher KP. Applied imaging technology. 4th ed. Melbourne: St. Vincent’s Hospital; 2001.
- 8. Davis J, Czerniski B, Au A, Adhikari S, Farrell I, Fields JM. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in retained soft tissue foreign bodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22:777-787.
- 9. Panigrahi R, Dash SK, Palo N, Priyadarshi A, Sahu SK, Biswal MR. Foreign Body Detection in Musculoskeletal Injuries: A In Vitro Blinded Study Comparing sensitivity among Digital radiography, Ultrasonography, CT and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Musculoskeletal Regeneration. 2015;2:e649.
- 10. Valizadeh S, Pouraliakbar H, Kiani L, Safi Y, Alibakhshi L. Evaluation of Visibility of Foreign Bodies in the Maxillofacial Region: Comparison of Computed Tomography, Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Iran J Radiol 2016;13:e37265.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Diş Hekimliği |
| Bölüm | Conference Papers |
| Yazarlar | |
| Erken Görünüm Tarihi | 13 Kasım 2023 |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 6 Aralık 2023 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 2 Kasım 2022 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2023 Cilt: 50 Sayı: Suppl 1 |
