YABANCI CİSİMLER VE DENTAL MATERYALLERİN GÖRÜNTÜ ÖZELLİKLERİNİN FARKLI GÖRÜNTÜLEME TEKNİKLERİ İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, çene yüz bölgesine penetre olabilen opak veya opak olmayan dental materyaller ve yabancı cisimlerin görüntü karakterlerinin farklı görüntüleme teknikleri ile belirlenmesi ve bu cisimlerin saptanmasında konvansiyonel radyografi ve ultrasonografi tekniklerinin kullanımının karşılaştırılmasıdır. Çalışmaya farklı opasite özellikleri gösteren, dental materyaller ve yabancı cisimlerden oluşan 15 obje dahil edildi. Objeler, bir cm ve üç cm olmak üzere iki ayrı derinlikte sığır jelatinine gömüldü. Objeler, konvansiyonel radyografi ve ultrasonografi ile görüntülendi ve görüntü özellikleri tablo halinde kaydedildi. Konvansiyonel radyografi ile objelerin opasitesi değerlendirilirken, ultrasonografi ile görünürlükleri ve posterior akustik davranışları incelendi. Konvansiyonel radyografi görüntülerinde objelerden 9 tanesi opak, 2 tanesi yarı opak, 4 tanesi non-opak görünümdeydi. Ultrasonografi ile değerlendirmede konvansiyonel radyografide görüntü elde edilemeyen objeler de dahil olmak üzere tüm objelerden görüntü elde edilebildi. Bunlardan 13 tanesi hiperekoik görünümde izlenirken; 2 tanesi izoekoik görünümde idi. Objelerin akustik davranışları incelendiğinde ise, 9 tanesinde posterior akustik gölgelenme, 1 tanesinde comet tail artefaktı ve bir tanesinde reverberasyon artefaktı gözlenirken 4 tanesinde herhangi bir artefakt bulgusu izlenmedi. Ultrasonografi, yumuşak dokuya penetre olabilen, düşük radyodensite özelliği gösteren veya konvansiyonel radyografide görüntü oluşturmayan yabancı cisimlerin saptanmasında efektif şekilde kullanılabilir.

Keywords

• Konvansiyonel radyografi
• maksillofasiyal bölge
• ultrasonografi
• yabancı cisim

EVALUATION OF THE IMAGE PROPERTIES OF FOREIGN BODIES AND DENTAL MATERIALS WITH DIFFERENT IMAGING TECHNIQUES

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the image characteristics of opaque or non-opaque dental materials and foreign bodies that can penetrate the maxillofacial region with different imaging techniques. The study included fifteen distinct objects that possessed varying opacity properties, consisting dental materials and foreign bodies. Objects were embedded in bovine gelatin at two different depths, 1 cm and 3 cm. Objects were visualized by conventional radiography and ultrasonography, and their image properties were recorded. While the opacity of the objects was evaluated with conventional radiography, their visibility and posterior acoustic behavior were examined with ultrasonography. In conventional radiography images, 9 of the objects were opaque, 2 was semi-opaque, and 4 was non-opaque. During the evaluation using ultrasonography, images were successfully acquired from all objects, including those that were not visualized using conventional radiography. While 13 of them were observed to have a hyperechoic appearance, 2 of them were isoechoic. When the acoustic behavior of the objects was examined, posterior acoustic shadowing was observed in 9 of them, a comet tail artifact in 1, and a reverberation artifact in 1, while no artifact findings were observed in 4 of them. Ultrasonography can be used effectively to detect foreign bodies that have low radiodensities or do not form an image in conventional radiography.

Keywords

• conventional radiography
• maxillofacial region
• ultrasonography
• foreign body

References

1. Eggers G, Welzel T, Mukhamadiev D, et al. X-ray–based volumetric imaging of foreign bodies: A comparison of computed tomography and digital volume tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(9):1880-5. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.09.029. PMID: 17719420
2. Hunter TB, Taljanovic MS. Foreign bodies. Radiographics. 2003;23(3):731-57. doi: 10.1148/rg.233025137. PMID: 12740473.
3. Parolia A, Kamath M, Kundubala M, Manuel T, Mohan M. Management of foreign body aspiration or ingestion in dentistry. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2009;7(26):165-171. doi:10.3126/kumj.v7i2.2715
4. Eggers G, Mukhamadiev D, Hassfeld S. Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34(2):74-79. doi:10.1259/dmfr/22475468
5. Leith R, Fleming P, Redahan S, Doherty P. Aspiration of an avulsed primary incisor: a case report. Dent Traumatol. 2008;24(5):e24-e26. doi:10.1111/j.1600-9657.2008.00593.x
6. Fredekind R, McConnell T, Jacobsen P. Ingested objects: a case report with review of management and prevention. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1995;23(9):50-55.
7. Başoǧlu Ö, Buduneli N, Çaǧirici U, Turhan K, Aysan T. Pulmonary aspiration of a two‐unit bridge during a deep sleep. . J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(6):461-463. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01472.x
8. Hill EE, Rubel B. A practical review of prevention and management of ingested/aspirated dental items. Gen Dent. 2008;56(7):691-694.

9. 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. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(4):TC15-TC19. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/24523.9736
10. Tahmasebi M, Zareizadeh H, Motamedfar A. Accuracy of ultrasonography in detecting radiolucent soft-tissue foreign bodies. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2014;24(2):196-200.
11. 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(4):e37265. doi:10.5812/iranjradiol.37265
12. Caglayan F, Bayrakdar IS. The intraoral ultrasonography in dentistry. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018;21(2):125-133. doi:10.4103/1119-3077.197016
13. Oikarinen K, Nieminen T, Mäkäräinen H, Pyhtinen J. Visibility of foreign bodies in soft tissue in plain radiographs, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;22(2):119-124. doi:10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80818-5
14. Tseng H-J, Hanna TN, Shuaib W,et al. Imaging foreign bodies: ingested, aspirated, and inserted. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;66(6):570-582.e5. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.07.499
15. Halverson M, Servaes S. Foreign bodies: radiopaque compared to what? Pediatr Radiol. 2013;43(9):1103-1107. doi:10.1007/s00247-013-2660-y
16. Orlinsky M, Knittel P, Feit T, Chan L, Mandavia D. The comparative accuracy of radiolucent foreign body detection using ultrasonography. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18(4):401-403. doi:10.1053/ajem.2000.7315
17. 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. doi.org/10.14800/MR.649.
18. Ingraham CR, Mannelli L, Robinson JD, Linnau KF. Radiology of foreign bodies: how do we image them? Emerg Radiol. 2015;22(4):425-430. doi:10.1007/s10140-015-1294-919
19. Aras M, Miloglu O, Barutcugil C, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(2):72-78. doi:10.1259/dmfr/68589458
20. Demiralp KÖ, Orhan K, Çakmak EŞK, Görürgöz C, Bayrak S. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography and ultrasonography with two types of probes in the detection of opaque and non-opaque foreign bodies. Med Ultrason. 2018;20(4):467-474. doi:10.11152/mu-1562.
21. Çağlayan F, Yozgat İlbaş FN. Sonographic features of various dental materials and foreign bodies. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2022;51(2):20210182. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20210182
22. Horton LK, Jacobson JA, Powell A, Fessell DP, Hayes CW. Sonography and radiography of soft-tissue foreign bodies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(5):1155-1159. doi:10.2214/ajr.176.5.1761155
23. Khandelwal P, Dhupar V, Akkara F, Hajira N. Impacted foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region–A series of three cases. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2018;11(4):237-240. doi:10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_114_17
24. Tsukamoto M, Hirokawa J, Yokoyama T. Retained foreign body in the nasal cavity after oral maxillofacial surgery. Anesth Prog. 2018;65(2):111-112. doi:10.2344/anpr-65-01-07
25. Bhatnagar S, Das U, Chandan G, et al. Foreign body ingestion in dental practice. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011;29(4):336-338. doi:10.4103/0970-4388.86387
26. Leuzzi G, Kawamukai K, Lacava N. An unusual foreign body after dental filling. Lung. 2013;191(6):677-678. doi:10.1007/s00408-013-9514-0
27. Susini G, Pommel L, Camps J. Accidental ingestion and aspiration of root canal instruments and other dental foreign bodies in a French population. Int Endod J. 2007;40(8):585-589. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01249.x
28. Anantham D, Koh MS, Ernst A. Endobronchial ultrasound. Respir Med. 2009;103(10):1406-1414. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2009.04.010
29. Tontini GE, Manfredi G, Orlando S, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography and small‐bowel endoscopy: Present and future. Dig Endosc. 2019;31(6):627-643. doi:10.1111/den.13429