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
. 2015;44(4):20140229.
doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140229. Epub 2014 Nov 26.

Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study

R Javadrashid  1 , D F Fouladi, M Golamian, P Hajalioghli, M H Daghighi, Z Shahmorady, M T Niknejad
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study

R Javadrashid et al. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the usefulness of four imaging modalities in visualizing various foreign bodies of different sizes.

Methods: Foreign bodies of four sizes (0.5, 1, 2 and 3 mm) including metal, tooth, wood, plastic, stone, glass and graphite were embedded in six fresh sheep heads on bone surface between the corpus mandible and muscle, and inside the tongue muscle. A human dry skull served as an air-filled space. Plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography were used, and four skilled radiologists rated the findings individually.

Results: All embedded foreign bodies except wood were best visualized using CT. Wood could only be detected using ultrasonography, and then only when fragments were >0.5 mm in size. Plain radiography and CT were almost equally accurate in visualizing metal and graphite. MRI was the least useful imaging technique.

Conclusions: In cases with suspected foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region, CT seems to be the optimal initial imaging study. Wood, however, could only be detected using ultrasonography.

Keywords: foreign body; imaging technique; maxillofacial region; visibility.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Materials used as foreign bodies (from left to right: plastic, tooth, graphite, wood, stone, glass and metal).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Visibility of metal (size, 3 mm) on the bone surface using radiography. Arrow indicates foreign body.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Visibility of wood (size, 2 mm) inside the muscle using ultrasonography. Arrow indicates foreign body.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Visibility of plastic (size, 2 mm) in the air using CT. Arrow indicates foreign body.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Visibility of stone (size, 1 mm) inside the muscle using MRI. Arrow indicates foreign body.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Krimmel M, Cornelius CP, Stojadinovic S, Hoffmann J, Reinert S. Wooden foreign bodies in facial injury: a radiological pitfall. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 30: 445–7. - PubMed
    1. Rudagi BM, Halli R, Kini Y, Kharkhar V, Saluja H. Foreign bodies in facial trauma-report of 3 cases. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2013; 12: 210–13. doi: 10.1007/s12663-010-0072-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kempf L, Braun KF, Neu J. Foreign body retention after soft tissue laceration. A case of insufficient inspection and documentation. [In German.] Unfallchirurg 2014; 117: 162–6. doi: 10.1007/s00113-013-2535-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Swathi N, Umadevi J. An undetected intraorbital foreign body after a “trivial” facial injury. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25: 1782–3. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000905 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Santos Tde S, Melo AR, de Moraes HH, Avelar RL, Becker OE, Haas OL, Jr, et al. . Impacted foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region-diagnosis and treatment. J Craniofac Surg 2011; 22: 1404–8. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31821cc53e - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms