Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Feb;39(2):72-8.
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/68589458.

Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography

M H Aras  1 , O Miloglu, C Barutcugil, M Kantarci, E Ozcan, A Harorli
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography

M H Aras et al. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, CT and ultrasonography in in vitro models.

Methods: Seven different materials were selected as foreign bodies with dimensions of approximately 1 x 1 x 0.1 cm. These materials were metal, glass, wood, stone, acrylic, graphite and Bakelite. These foreign bodies were placed into a sheep's head between the corpus mandible and muscle, in the tongue and in the maxillary sinus. Conventional plain radiography, CT and ultrasonography imaging methods were compared to investigate their sensitivity for detecting these foreign bodies.

Results: Metal, glass and stone can be detected with all the visualization techniques used in the study in all of the zones. In contrast to this, foreign bodies with low radiopacity, which could be detected in air with CT, became less visible or almost invisible in muscle tissue and between bone and muscle tissue. The performance of ultrasonography for visualizing foreign bodies with low radiopacity is relatively better than CT.

Conclusions: Ultrasonography detects and localizes superficial foreign bodies with low radiopacity in the tissues of the body more effectively than CT and conventional plain radiography. However, CT is a more effective technique for visualization of foreign bodies in air than ultrasound and conventional plain radiography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Visibility of foreign body on bone. (a) Conventional plain radiography. (b) CT. (c) Ultrasonography. 1, dry wood; 2, stone; 3, acrylic; 4, Bakelite
Figure 2
Figure 2
Visibility of foreign body in muscle. (a) Conventional plain radiography. (b) CT. (c) Ultrasonography. 1, glass; 2, dry wood; 3, acrylic; 4, graphite
Figure 3
Figure 3
Visibility of foreign body in air. (a) Conventional plain radiography. (b) CT. (c) Ultrasonography. 1, metal; 2, dry wood; 3, graphite; 4, Bakelite. Note that it is not possible to evaluate the foreign bodies' visibility in air with ultrasonography. For this reason, only one figure was submitted to represent all bodies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Eggers G, Welzel T, Mukhamadiev D, Wortche R, Hassfeld S, Muhling J. X-ray-based volumetric imaging of foreign bodies: a comparison of computed tomography and digital volume tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1880–1885 - PubMed
    1. Hunter TB, Taljanovic MS. Foreign bodies. Radiographics 2003;23:731–757 - PubMed
    1. Eggers G, Mukhamadiev D, Hassfeld S. Detection of foreign bodies of the head with digital volume tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:74–79 - PubMed
    1. Oikarinen KS, Nieminen TM, Makarainen 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;22:119–124 - PubMed
    1. Lagalla R, Manfre L, Caronia A, Bencivinni F, Duranti C, Ponte F. Plain film, CT and MRI sensibility in the evaluation of intraorbital foreign bodies in an in vitro model of the orbit and in pig eyes. Eur Radiol 2000;10:1338–1341 - PubMed

Publication types