World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultrasonography with Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Maxillomandibular Fractures

Lekha Airan, Mohan Baliga, Souvick Sarkar, Subhagata Chakraborty, Dani M Tusharbhai

Keywords : CT scanning, Maxillofacial, Maxillomandibular trauma, Ultrasonography

Citation Information : Airan L, Baliga M, Sarkar S, Chakraborty S, Tusharbhai DM. Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultrasonography with Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Maxillomandibular Fractures. World J Dent 2019; 10 (3):181-185.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1632

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Head and neck trauma forms a major proportion of patients requiring maxillofacial care. Imaging is a vital part in the management of these patients. Many modalities exist that maybe utilized for the purpose of visualizing the fracture defects. Computed tomography (CT) scans have been considered the gold standard even with many disadvantages like associated radiation hazards, high cost factor, unavailability in rural healthcare setup, and time taken for the scans. Aim: Through our study, we aim to compare the efficacy of ultrasonography (USG) and compare it with CT scan in the detection of maxillomandibular fractures. Materials and methods: Over a 2-year period, 50 patients suspected with zygomatico-complex (ZMC) or mandible fractures underwent clinical examination followed by radiographic assessment using ultrasound and CT scans. The sensitivity, specificity, and time taken to evaluate the fractures were determined and compared. Results: High correlation existed between USG and CT scan in the detection of the maxillomandibular fractures. The sensitivity was 95% and the specificity was 90% with a high positive predictive value. Conclusion: Apart from a few disadvantages like difficulty in interpretation of a film without a report or clinical correlation and examiner variability, the advantages associated with its use probably outweigh the shortcomings.


PDF Share
  1. Ballantyne B, Ling A, et al. The current role of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) in the ever-evolving approach to abdominal trauma. Univ West Ont Med J 2012;81:20–22.
  2. Kumar GBA, Dhupar V, et al. Patterns of maxillofacial fractures in goa. J.Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015 Jun;14(2):138–141. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-013-0583-7.
  3. Rowe LD, Miller E, et al. Computed tomography in the maxillofacial trauma. Laryngoscope 1981;91:745–757. DOI: 10.1288/00005537-198105000-00007.
  4. Adenyemo WL, Akadiri OA. A systematic review of the diagnostic role of ultrasonography in maxillofacial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40(7):655–661. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2011.02.001.
  5. Banks P, Brown A. Etiology, surgical anatomy and classification. In: Banks P, Brown A. ed. Fractures of the facial skeleton, 1st ed. Philadelphia, USA: Elsevier, 2001.
  6. Larry H, Hollier Jr, et al. MD Facial Trauma: General Principles of Management. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21:1051–1053. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181e5701c.
  7. Joshi N, Kira A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, and bedside ultrasound for diagnosis of extremity fractures in the emergency department: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2013;20:1–15. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12058.
  8. Kane D, Grassi W, et al. A brief history of musculoskeletal ultrasound: “From bats and ships to babies and hips”. Rheumatology (oxford) 2004 Jul 1;43(7):931–933. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keh004.
  9. Hong HS, Cha JG, et al. High resolution sonography for nasal fracture in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(1):W8692. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.1067.
  10. Mohammadi A, Ghasemi-Rad M. Nasal bone fracture-ultrasonography or computed tomography? Med Ultrason 2011 Dec;13(4): 292–295.
  11. Friedrich RE, Heiland M, et al. Potentials of ultrasound in the diagnosis of midfacial fractures. Clin Oral Investig 2003 Dec;7(4):226–229. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-003-0232-5.
  12. Takashi H, Ernest K, et al. Ultrasonic Observation of Facial Bone Fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:776–779. DOI: 10.1016/S0278-2391(96)90703-X.
  13. Singh KS, Jayachandran S. A comparative study on the diagnostic utility of ultrasonography with conventional radiography and computed tomography scan in detection of zygomatic arch and mandibular fractures. Contemp Clin Dent 2014 Apr;5(2):166–169. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.132306.
  14. Kleinheinz J, Anastassov GE, et al. Ultrasonographic vs conventional diagnostic procedures in dislocated subcondylar mandibular fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Trauma 1997;3:40–42.
  15. Blessmann M, Pohlenz P, et al. Validation of a new training tool for ultrasound as ad diagnostic modality in suspected midfacial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36(6):501–506. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2007.01.016.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.