
Background and aims. The imaging techniques commonly used for foreign body detection include plain radiography, xeroradiography, computed tomography (CT) scans, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography. The aim of the present study was to compare cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with conventional CT scan in determination of the exact location of a foreign body in the maxillofacial area in vitro. Materials and methods. In this descriptive study, seven different materials were selected as foreign bodies with dimensions of approximately 2 mm, 1 mm, and 0.5 mm. These materials consisted of metal, glass, wood, stone, plastic, graphite and tooth. These foreign bodies were placed in a sheep head between the corpus of the mandible and muscle, in the tongue and in an air space. One conventional CT scan and two CBCT scans were made on the models. Results. Tooth, metal, stone and glass foreign bodies were seen clearly on CT and CBCT scans made by NewTom at the smallest size in air. However, CBCT scan by NewTom was a more effective technique for visualization of foreign bodies in air compared to conventional CT. Foreign bodies measuring 0.5 mm made of metal, stone, glass, graphite and teeth were detected by all devices in muscle tissue and adjacent bone. Conclusion. According to the results, CBCT scans of NewTom and Planmeca are appropriate tools for detecting foreign bodies with relative high density in the maxillofacial area.
Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects; eISSN 2008-2118
Dentistry, Cone-beam computed tomography, RK1-715, Original Article, 610 Medical sciences; Medicine, foreign body, spiral computed tomography
Dentistry, Cone-beam computed tomography, RK1-715, Original Article, 610 Medical sciences; Medicine, foreign body, spiral computed tomography
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 16 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
