Maksillofasial Bölgede Yer Alan Yabanci Cisimlerin Analizi: Retrospektif Çalişma

Year 2023, Volume: 13 Issue: 3, 306 - 311, 21.09.2023

Kadriye Ayca Dere

https://doi.org/10.33631/sabd.1233416

Abstract

Amaç: Maksillofasiyal bölgede yer alan yabancı cisimler travma, terapötik müdahaleler veya ameliyatlarda sırasında kırılan aletlerin geride bırakılması sebebiyle izlenirler. Etraflarındaki kemik, yumuşak dokuda veya antral boşluklarda asemptomatik olarak yer alabilirlerken; enfeksiyona, yer değiştirerek solunum yollarında hayati problemlere de neden olabilmektedirler. Bu sebeple, bu çalışmada belli bir zaman aralığında Ağız, Diş ve Çene Kliniğinde muayene edilen hastalarda yabancı cisim varlığı ve yarattıkları semptomların araştırılması amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Aralık 2020- Ağustos 2022 tarihleri arasında tek hekim tarafından tedavi edilen 6 624 hastanın radyolojik verileri incelenmiştir. Yabancı cismin sayısı, karakteristiği, yeri, hastaların yaş ve cinsiyet bilgileri kaydedilmiş ve değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen tarihler arasında Ağız, Diş ve Çene Kliniğine başvuran 6 624 hastanın radyolojik verileri incelenmiş ve 48 hastada, %0,77 sıklıkta yabancı cisim tespit edilmiştir. Bu hastaların 22'si erkek, 26'sı kadındır. Tespit edilen yabancı cisimlerin çoğunun mandibulada (%80,85) yerleştiği görülmüştür. Dolgu materyalleri, kanal patı, frez, bein elevatör parçası, saçma ve presel parçaları yabancı cisim olarak saptanmış ve dolgu materyalleri tespit edilen diğer yabancı cisimlere göre anlamlı derecede daha sık izlenmiştir (p<0,05).
Sonuç: Çoğu asemptomatik olmasına ve fark edilememesine rağmen, maksillofasiyal bölgede yer alan yabancı cisimler yapılacak dikkatli klinik ve radyolojik muayene ile tespit edildikten sonra çıkarılması veya düzenli aralıklarla takip edilmeleri olası komplikasyonların önlenmesi açısından önem taşımaktadır.

Keywords

panoramik radyografi, çene, yabancı cisimler

Analysis of Retained Foreign Bodies in the Maxillofacial Region: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Aim: Retained foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region are caused by trauma, therapeutic procedures, or previous surgeries in which the broken instruments were left behind. They can usually be asymptomatic, but can also cause infections, be swallowed, or block the airway, leading to vital problems. Despite the complications they can cause, one-third of foreign bodies are overlooked during initial clinical and radiographic examinations. Therefore, the presence of foreign bodies and the symptoms they cause will be studied in patients examined during a specific time period.
Material and Methods: From December 2020 to August 2022, 6 624 radiological data were collected and retrospectively analysed. The number, characteristics, location of foreign bodies, age, and sex of patients were recorded.
Results: Radiologic data from 6624 patients who presented to the oral and maxillofacial clinic between the dates included in the study were reviewed, and 48 patients were found to have retained foreign bodies at a frequency of 0.77%. Of these patients, 22 were male and 26 were female. It was found that most of the retained foreign bodies were located in the mandible (80.85%). The foreign bodies detected were filling materials, canal sealers, drills, bein elevator pieces, buckshots, and dental forceps pieces, with filling materials being found significantly more often than other detected retained foreign bodies (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Although most foreign bodies are asymptomatic and may go unnoticed, removal of foreign bodies after their discovery with a careful clinical and radiological examination in the maxillary region is important to prevent possible complications.

Keywords

Foreign bodies, jaw, radiography

References

• Segen JC. McGraw-Hill. Concise dictionary of modern medicine. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 2002
• Oikarinen KS, Nieminen TM, 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): 119-24.
• Schnider N, Reichart PA, Bornstein MM. Intraoral foreign bodies detected 40 years after a car accident using cone beam computed tomography. Quintessence Int. 2012; 43(9): 741-5.
• Omezli M, Torul D, Sivrikaya E. The prevalence of foreign bodies in jaw bones on panoramic radiography. Indian J Dent. 2015; 6(4): 185-9.
• Balaji S. Burried broken extraction instrument fragment. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 3(1):93.
• de Santana Santos T, Avelar RL, Melo AR, de Moraes HH, Dourado E. Current approach in the management of patients with foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69(9): 2376-82. 7. Tabariai E, Sandhu S, Alexander G, Townsend R, Julian R 3rd, Bell G, et al. Management of facial penetrating injury-a case report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68(1): 182-7.
• Acharya S, Padhiary SK. Foreign body in the mid-face – An unusual case report. Indian J Dent. 2012; 3(3): 156-8.
• Veselko M, Trobec R. Intraoperative localization of retained metallic fragments in missile wounds. J Trauma - Inj Infect Crit Care. 2000; 49(6): 1052-8.
• Charney DB, Manzi JA, Turlik M, Young M. Nonmetallic foreign bodies in the foot: radiography versus xeroradiography. J Foot Surg. 1986; 25(1): 44-9.
• Eggers G, Mukhamadiev D, Hassfeld S. Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005; 34(2): 74-9.
• Shokri A, Jamalpour M, Jafariyeh B, Poorolajal J, Kanouni Sabet N. Comparison of ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging and cone beam computed tomography for detection of foreign bodies in maxillofacial region. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2017; 11(4): 15-9.
• Chen S, Liu YH, Gao X, Yang CY, Li Z. Computer-assisted navigation for removal of the foreign body in the lower jaw with a mandible reference frame: A case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020; 99(3): e18875.
• Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Shibata A, Matsumoto K, Sukegawa-Takahashi Y, Sakaida K, et al. Use of an intraoperative navigation system for retrieving a broken dental instrument in the mandible: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2017; 11(1): 1-5.
• Yao J, Zeng W, Zhou S, Cheng J, Huang C, Tang W. Augmented Reality Technology Could Be an Alternative Method to Treat Craniomaxillofacial Foreign Bodies: A Comparative Study Between Augmented Reality Technology and Navigation Technology. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 78(4): 578-87.
• Whitehouse DJ. Broken dental forceps. Br Dent J. 1995; 178(10): 363.
• Bharani K, Kamath RA, Kiran HY, Marol AD. Unobserved foreign body: A clinical dilemma. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medicine, and Pathology. 2015; 27(1): 65-9.
• de Visscher JG. A foreign body near the ramus of the mandible. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1984; 58(4): 484-5.
• Bodrumlu E. Biocompatibility of retrograde root filling materials: A review. Aust Endod J. 2008; 34(1): 30-5.
• Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 3: CD005620.
• Macek MD, Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Lockwood SA, Malvitz DM. Updated comparison of the caries susceptibility of various morphological types of permanent teeth. J Public Health Dent. 2003; 63(3): 174-82.
• Ruprecht A, Ross A. Location of broken instrument fragments. J Can Dent Assoc. 1981; 47(4): 245.
• Da Silva Pierro VS, De Morais AP, Granado L, Maia LC. An unusual accident during a primary molar extraction. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010; 34(3): 193-5.
• Price MV, Molloy S, Solan MC, Sutton A, Ricketts DM. The rate of instrument breakage during orthopaedic procedures. Int Orthop. 2002; 26(3): 185-7.
• Pichler W, Mazzurana P, Clement H, Grechenig S, Mauschitz R, Grechenig W. Frequency of instrument breakage during orthopaedic procedures and its effects on patients. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A. 2008; 90(12): 2652-4.
• Nayak RN, Hiremath S, Shaikh S, Nayak AR. Dysesthesia with pain due to a broken endodontic instrument lodged in the mandibular canal--a simple deroofing technique for its retrieval: case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 111(2): e48-51.
• Matsuzaka K, Mabuchi R, Nagasaka H, Yoshinari M, Inoue T. Improvement of eczematous symptoms after removal of amalgam-like metal in alveolar bone. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2006; 47(1): 13-7.