Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and conventional multislice spiral tomography in sheep mandibular condyle fractures
- PMID: 20729182
- PMCID: PMC3520235
- DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/29930707
Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and conventional multislice spiral tomography in sheep mandibular condyle fractures
Abstract
Objectives: the aim of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of cone beam CT (CBCT) and multislice CT in artificially created fractures of the sheep mandibular condyle.
Methods: 63 full-thickness sheep heads were used in this study. Two surgeons created the fractures, which were either displaced or non-displaced. CBCT images were acquired by the NewTom 3G CBCT scanner (NIM, Verona, Italy) and CT imaging was performed using the Toshiba Aquillon multislice CT scanner (Toshiba Medical Systems, Otawara, Japan). Two-dimensional (2D) cross-sectional images and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions were evaluated by two observers who were asked to determine the presence or absence of fracture and displacement, the type of fracture, anatomical localization and type of displacement. The naked-eye inspection during surgery served as the gold standard. Inter- and intra-observer agreements were calculated with weighted kappa statistics. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analyses were used to compare statistically the area under the curve (AUC) of both imaging modalities.
Results: kappa coefficients of intra- and interobserver agreement scores varied between 0.56 - 0.98, which were classified as moderate and excellent, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the imaging modalities, which were both sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of sheep condylar fractures.
Conclusions: this study confirms that CBCT is similar to CT in the diagnosis of different types of experimentally created sheep condylar fractures and can provide a cost- and dose-effective diagnostic option.
Figures
References
-
- Consensus conferenceonopenorclosedmanagementofcondylarfractures 12th ICOMS. Budapest, 1995. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;27:243–267 - PubMed
-
- Bos RR, Ward Booth RP, de Bont LG. Mandibular condyle fractures: a consensus. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;37:87–89 - PubMed
-
- Andersson J, Hallmer F, Eriksson L. Unilateral mandibular condylar fractures: a 31-year follow-up of non-surgical treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36:310–314 - PubMed
-
- Haug RH, Brandt MT. Closed reduction, open reduction, and endoscopic assistance: current thoughts on the management of mandibular condyle fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:90s–102s - PubMed
-
- Ellis E, Throckmorton GS. Treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: biological considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:115–134 - PubMed
