Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Comparison of Panoramic, Lateral Skull Projection and CBCT Images in Detection of Mandibular Condyle Fractures

Year 2021, , 129 - 136, 31.05.2021

Kaan Orhan , Mehmet Özemre , Cansu Köseoğlu Seçgin , Hazal Karslıoğlu , Kıvanç Kamburoglu , Gürkan Gür Gür , Sevil Vural

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.881763
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Objectives: Condyle fractures constitute 17.5–52% of all mandibular fractures. Our first aim was to investigate whether panoramic radiography or LSP images with lower radiation dose can be used instead of CBCT in the diagnosis of vertical condylar fractures. The second aim of the study was to compare observers' capabilities in diagnosing these fractures.
Materials and Methods: A sample consisting of 15 fresh cadaver mandibles with 30 condyles frozen within 24 hours post-mortem was randomly selected. Vertical fractures from the lateral 2/3 of the condyle head with 0.5 (10 condyles) and 1mm (10 condyles) thickness were created using a fret saw. After creating condyle fractures, digital panoramic, LSP, and CBCT images were acquired. Two dentomaxillofacial radiologists with 15 years of experience, two dentomaxillofacial radiologists with five and seven years of experience, and two newly graduated dentists have evaluated the images. The success of the observers in diagnosing the vertical condyle fracture in each imaging method, intra-observer and inter-observer agreement was evaluated.
Results: The success of all dentists in determining the condyle fractures using LSP images was higher than the success they achieved using panoramic images, but it was not sufficient. Using different imaging options with CBCT, all diagnoses made by new graduates and dentomaxillofacial radiologists with five and 15 years’ experience were 100% compatible with the gold standard (AC1: 1 (1–1)).
Conclusions: For the diagnosis of vertical condyle fractures, conventional techniques (panoramic and lateral jaw imaging methods) were found to be insufficient.

Keywords

cone beam computed tomography imaging mandibular condyle vertical fracture.

References

  • 1. Zachariades N, Mezitis M, Mourouzis C, et al. Fractures of the mandibular condyle: a review of 466 cases. Literature review, reflections on treatment and proposals. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006; 34:421–432.
  • 2. Rutges JP, Kruizinga EH, Rosenberg A, et al. Functional results after conservative treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;45:30–34.
  • 3. Silvennoinen U, Iizuka T, Lindqvist C, et al. Different patterns of condylar fractures: an analysis of 382 patients in a 3-year period. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50:1032-1037.
  • 4. Widmark G. Facial symmetry after closed and open treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:729.
  • 5. Santler G. A comparative evaluation of osteosynthesis with lag screws, miniplates, or Kirschner wires for mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:1169.
  • 6. Raustia AM, Pyhtinen J, Olkarinen KS, et al. Conventional radiographic and computed tomographic findings in cases of fracture of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48:1258-1264.
  • 7. Pohlenz P, Blessmann M, Blake F, et al. Clinical indications and perspectives for intraoperative conebeam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103: 412-417.
  • 8. Bos RR, Ward Booth RP, de Bont LG. Mandibular condyle fractures: a consensus. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 37:87–89.
  • 9. Hlawitschka M, Loukota R, Eckelt U. Functional and radiological results of open and closed treatment of intracapsular (diacapitular) condylar fractures of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;34:597–604.
  • 10. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. Mosby/Elsevier 2013.
  • 11. Viozzi C.F. Maxillofacial and mandibular fractures in sports. Clin Sports Med 2017; 36:355-368.
  • 12. Honda K, Larheim TA, Maruhashi K, et al. Osseous abnormalities of the mandibular condyle: diagnostic reliability of cone beam computed tomography compared with helical computed tomography based on an autopsy material. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35: 152–157.
  • 13. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van DE, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009;71:461–468.
  • 14. Schlueter B, Kim KB, Oliver D, et al. Cone beam computed tomography 3D reconstruction of the mandibular condyle. Angle Orthod 2008;78:880–888.
  • 15. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, et al. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:83–86.
  • 16. Thielen BV, Siguenza F, Hassan B. Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Veterinary Dentistry. J Vet Dent 2012;29:27 – 34.
  • 17. Sirin Y, Guven K, Horasan S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and conventional multislice spiral tomography in sheep mandibular condyle fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:336–342.
  • 18. Costa E Silva APA, Antunes JLF, Cavalcanti MGP 2D-CT and 3D-CT of mandibular condyle fractures 203 Interpretation of Mandibular Condyle Fractures Using 2D- and 3D-Computed Tomography. Braz Dent J 2003;14:203-208.
  • 19. Sawazaki R, Júnior SML, Asprino L, et al. Incidence and Patterns of Mandibular Condyle Fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1252-1259.
  • 20. Laskin DM. Establishing new standards. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:1141.
  • 21. Lindahl L. Condylar fractures of the mandible. Int J Oral Surg 1977;6:12–21.
  • 22. Newman L. A clinical evaluation of the long-term outcome of patients treated for bilateral fracture of the mandibular condyles. Brit J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;36:76–179.
  • 23. Zhang X, Obeid G. A comparative study of the treatment of unilateral fractured and dislocated mandibular condyles in the rabbit. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:1181–1190.
  • 24. Hyde N, Manisali M, Aghabeigi B, et al The role of open reduction and internal fixation in unilateral fractures of the mandibular condyle: a prospective study. Brit J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;40:19–22.
  • 25. MacLennan WD. Fractures of the mandibular condylar process. Brit J Oral Surg 1969;7: 31–39.
  • 26. Nardi C, Vignoli C, Pietragalla M, Tonelli P, Calistri L et al Imaging of mandibular fractures: a pictorial review. Insights into Imaging 2020;19:11(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s13244-020-0837-0.
  • 27. Gonçalves N. Aspectos radiográficos da articulação temporomandibular In: Freitas A, Rosa JE, Souza IF. (Ed), Radiologia Odontológica. São Paulo 2000:227-234.
  • 28. Çakur B, Sümbüllü MA, Tozoğlu Ü. The Importance Of Cone Beam Ct In The Radiological Detection Of Condylar Fracture Kondil Kiriğinin Radyolojik Tespitinde Konik Işinli Bilgisayarli Tomografinin Önemi. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 2011;21:115-118.
  • 29. Kaeppler G, Cornelius CP, Ehrenfeld M, Mast G. Diagnostic efcacy of cone-beam computed tomography for mandibular fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;116(1):98–104
  • 30. Aydin U, Gormez O, Yildirim D. Cone beam computed tomography imaging of dentoalveolar and mandibular fractures. Oral Radiology 2020;36:217–224.
  • 31. Davis WM Jr. An interesting condylar fracture revealed by use of computed tomography. Oral Surg 1989;67:31-32.
  • 32. Fujii N, Yamasiro M. Computed tomography for the diagnosis of facial fractures. J Oral Surg 1981;39:735.
  • 33. Choudhary AB, Motwani MB, Degwekar SS, Bhowate RR, Banode PJ, Yadav AO, et al. Utility of digital volume tomography in maxillofacial trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(6):135–40.
  • 34. Sukegawa S, Masui M, Kanno T, Miki M, Nakamoto H et al. Evaluation of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Mandibular Condyle Fracture by Intraoperative Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in a Hybrid Operating Room J Craniofac Surg 2020;31(3):762-765 doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006101.
  • 35. Librizzi ZT, Tadinada AS, Valiyaparambil JV, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography to detect erosions of the temporomandibular joint: effect of field of view and voxel size on diagnostic efficacy and effective dose. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140: e25–30.

Year 2021, , 129 - 136, 31.05.2021

Kaan Orhan , Mehmet Özemre , Cansu Köseoğlu Seçgin , Hazal Karslıoğlu , Kıvanç Kamburoglu , Gürkan Gür Gür , Sevil Vural

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.881763
Cited By: 1

Abstract

References

  • 1. Zachariades N, Mezitis M, Mourouzis C, et al. Fractures of the mandibular condyle: a review of 466 cases. Literature review, reflections on treatment and proposals. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006; 34:421–432.
  • 2. Rutges JP, Kruizinga EH, Rosenberg A, et al. Functional results after conservative treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;45:30–34.
  • 3. Silvennoinen U, Iizuka T, Lindqvist C, et al. Different patterns of condylar fractures: an analysis of 382 patients in a 3-year period. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50:1032-1037.
  • 4. Widmark G. Facial symmetry after closed and open treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:729.
  • 5. Santler G. A comparative evaluation of osteosynthesis with lag screws, miniplates, or Kirschner wires for mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:1169.
  • 6. Raustia AM, Pyhtinen J, Olkarinen KS, et al. Conventional radiographic and computed tomographic findings in cases of fracture of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48:1258-1264.
  • 7. Pohlenz P, Blessmann M, Blake F, et al. Clinical indications and perspectives for intraoperative conebeam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103: 412-417.
  • 8. Bos RR, Ward Booth RP, de Bont LG. Mandibular condyle fractures: a consensus. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 37:87–89.
  • 9. Hlawitschka M, Loukota R, Eckelt U. Functional and radiological results of open and closed treatment of intracapsular (diacapitular) condylar fractures of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;34:597–604.
  • 10. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. Mosby/Elsevier 2013.
  • 11. Viozzi C.F. Maxillofacial and mandibular fractures in sports. Clin Sports Med 2017; 36:355-368.
  • 12. Honda K, Larheim TA, Maruhashi K, et al. Osseous abnormalities of the mandibular condyle: diagnostic reliability of cone beam computed tomography compared with helical computed tomography based on an autopsy material. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35: 152–157.
  • 13. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van DE, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009;71:461–468.
  • 14. Schlueter B, Kim KB, Oliver D, et al. Cone beam computed tomography 3D reconstruction of the mandibular condyle. Angle Orthod 2008;78:880–888.
  • 15. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, et al. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:83–86.
  • 16. Thielen BV, Siguenza F, Hassan B. Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Veterinary Dentistry. J Vet Dent 2012;29:27 – 34.
  • 17. Sirin Y, Guven K, Horasan S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and conventional multislice spiral tomography in sheep mandibular condyle fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:336–342.
  • 18. Costa E Silva APA, Antunes JLF, Cavalcanti MGP 2D-CT and 3D-CT of mandibular condyle fractures 203 Interpretation of Mandibular Condyle Fractures Using 2D- and 3D-Computed Tomography. Braz Dent J 2003;14:203-208.
  • 19. Sawazaki R, Júnior SML, Asprino L, et al. Incidence and Patterns of Mandibular Condyle Fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1252-1259.
  • 20. Laskin DM. Establishing new standards. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:1141.
  • 21. Lindahl L. Condylar fractures of the mandible. Int J Oral Surg 1977;6:12–21.
  • 22. Newman L. A clinical evaluation of the long-term outcome of patients treated for bilateral fracture of the mandibular condyles. Brit J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;36:76–179.
  • 23. Zhang X, Obeid G. A comparative study of the treatment of unilateral fractured and dislocated mandibular condyles in the rabbit. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:1181–1190.
  • 24. Hyde N, Manisali M, Aghabeigi B, et al The role of open reduction and internal fixation in unilateral fractures of the mandibular condyle: a prospective study. Brit J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;40:19–22.
  • 25. MacLennan WD. Fractures of the mandibular condylar process. Brit J Oral Surg 1969;7: 31–39.
  • 26. Nardi C, Vignoli C, Pietragalla M, Tonelli P, Calistri L et al Imaging of mandibular fractures: a pictorial review. Insights into Imaging 2020;19:11(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s13244-020-0837-0.
  • 27. Gonçalves N. Aspectos radiográficos da articulação temporomandibular In: Freitas A, Rosa JE, Souza IF. (Ed), Radiologia Odontológica. São Paulo 2000:227-234.
  • 28. Çakur B, Sümbüllü MA, Tozoğlu Ü. The Importance Of Cone Beam Ct In The Radiological Detection Of Condylar Fracture Kondil Kiriğinin Radyolojik Tespitinde Konik Işinli Bilgisayarli Tomografinin Önemi. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 2011;21:115-118.
  • 29. Kaeppler G, Cornelius CP, Ehrenfeld M, Mast G. Diagnostic efcacy of cone-beam computed tomography for mandibular fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;116(1):98–104
  • 30. Aydin U, Gormez O, Yildirim D. Cone beam computed tomography imaging of dentoalveolar and mandibular fractures. Oral Radiology 2020;36:217–224.
  • 31. Davis WM Jr. An interesting condylar fracture revealed by use of computed tomography. Oral Surg 1989;67:31-32.
  • 32. Fujii N, Yamasiro M. Computed tomography for the diagnosis of facial fractures. J Oral Surg 1981;39:735.
  • 33. Choudhary AB, Motwani MB, Degwekar SS, Bhowate RR, Banode PJ, Yadav AO, et al. Utility of digital volume tomography in maxillofacial trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(6):135–40.
  • 34. Sukegawa S, Masui M, Kanno T, Miki M, Nakamoto H et al. Evaluation of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Mandibular Condyle Fracture by Intraoperative Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in a Hybrid Operating Room J Craniofac Surg 2020;31(3):762-765 doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006101.
  • 35. Librizzi ZT, Tadinada AS, Valiyaparambil JV, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography to detect erosions of the temporomandibular joint: effect of field of view and voxel size on diagnostic efficacy and effective dose. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140: e25–30.
There are 35 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Health Care Administration
Journal Section Original Research Articles
Authors

Kaan Orhan 0000-0003-1686-4746

Mehmet Özemre 0000-0001-5863-6990

Cansu Köseoğlu Seçgin 0000-0002-7896-1165

Hazal Karslıoğlu 0000-0003-2910-2417

Kıvanç Kamburoglu 0000-0002-4134-5756

Gürkan Gür Gür 0000-0002-4376-7848

Sevil Vural 0000-0003-2111-3381

Publication Date May 31, 2021
Submission Date February 17, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021

Cite

EndNote Orhan K, Özemre M, Köseoğlu Seçgin C, Karslıoğlu H, Kamburoglu K, Gür GG, Vural S (May 1, 2021) Comparison of Panoramic, Lateral Skull Projection and CBCT Images in Detection of Mandibular Condyle Fractures. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 24 2 129–136.

Cited By

The Application of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) on the Diagnosis and Management of Maxillofacial Trauma
Diagnostics
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14040373

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.


CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.

Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.

Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.