Advertisement

A comparison of panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography in the detection of osteosynthesis complications in sheep mandibular angle fractures

Published:October 16, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2018.10.001

      Objective

      The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of panoramic radiography (PANO) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in detecting simulated complications of plate osteosynthesis applied to mandibular angle fractures (MAFs).

      Study Design

      Unfavorable MAFs were created in 100 fresh sheep hemimandibles. Fractures were fixed with 4-hole titanium miniplates and screws. Bone necrosis around the screws, penetration of the screw into the inferior alveolar canal, screw loosening, and plate breakage were simulated. The diagnostic efficacy of the imaging techniques was compared by using intra- and interobserver agreement scores and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values. Examination time (ET), confidence scores (CS), and planar preference (PP) in CBCT evaluation were assessed.

      Results

      Intra- and interobserver agreement scores varied between 0.61 and 0.91. AUCs for screw penetration into the inferior alveolar canal and screw loosening were significantly higher in CBCT than in PANO (P < .05). CBCT presented significantly higher ET and CS values compared with PANO (P < .05). PP showed significant differences among types of complications (P < .05).

      Conclusions

      PANO provided acceptable outcomes in the detection of bone necrosis and broken plates around the screw, but CBCT was more likely to enable detection of all simulated types of complications with higher confidence.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      References

        • Afrooz P.N.
        • Bykowski M.R.
        • James I.B.
        • Daniali L.N.
        • Clavijo-Alvarez J.A.
        The epidemiology of mandibular fractures in the United States, Part 1: a review of 13,142 cases from the US National Trauma Data Bank.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73: 2361-2366
        • Bormann K.H.
        • Wild S.
        • Gellrich N.C.
        • et al.
        Five-year retrospective study of mandibular fractures in Freiburg, Germany: incidence, etiology, treatment, and complications.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67: 1251-1255
        • Morris C.
        • Bebeau N.P.
        • Brockhoff H.
        • Tandon R.
        • Tiwana P.
        Mandibular fractures: an analysis of the epidemiology and patterns of injury in 4,143 fractures.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73 (951.e1-951.e12)
        • Patel N.
        • Kim B.
        • Zaid W.
        A detailed analysis of mandibular angle fractures: epidemiology, patterns, treatments, and outcomes.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74: 1792-1799
        • Rocton S.
        • Chaine A.
        • Ernenwein D.
        • et al.
        Mandibular fractures: epidemiology, therapeutic management, and complications in a series of 563 cases.
        Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2007; 108 (discussion 10-12): 3-10
        • Bouguila J.
        • Zairi I.
        • Khonsari R.H.
        • Lankriet C.
        • Mokhtar M.
        • Adouani A.
        Mandibular fracture: a 10-year review of 685 cases treated in Charles-Nicolle Hospital (Tunis-Tunisia).
        Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2009; 110: 81-85
        • Adeyemo W.L.
        • Iwegbu I.O.
        • Bello S.A.
        • et al.
        Management of mandibular fractures in a developing country: a review of 314 cases from two urban centers in Nigeria.
        World J Surg. 2008; 32: 2631-2635
        • Gadicherla S.
        • Sasikumar P.
        • Gill S.S.
        • Bhagania M.
        • Kamath A.T.
        • Pentapati K.C.
        Mandibular fractures and associated factors at a tertiary care hospital.
        Arch Trauma Res. 2016; 5: e30574
        • Chrcanovic B.R.
        • Abreu M.H.
        • Freire-Maia B.
        • Souza L.N.
        1,454 mandibular fractures: a 3-year study in a hospital in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012; 40: 116-123
        • Michelet F.X.
        • Deymes J.
        • Dessus B.
        Osteosynthesis with miniaturized screwed plates in maxillo-facial surgery.
        J Maxillofac Surg. 1973; 1: 79-84
        • Champy M.
        • Lodde J.P.
        • Schmitt R.
        • Jaeger J.H.
        • Muster D.
        Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach.
        J Maxillofac Surg. 1978; 6: 14-21
        • Khiabani K.S.
        • Mehmandoost M.K.
        Transoral miniplate fixation of mandibular angle fracture with and without 2 weeks of maxillomandibular fixation: a clinical trial study.
        Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2013; 6: 107-114
        • Schierle H.P.
        • Schmelzeisen R.
        • Rahn B.
        • Pytlik C.
        One- or two-plate fixation of mandibular angle fractures?.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1997; 25: 162-168
        • Feller K.U.
        • Schneider M.
        • Hlawitschka M.
        • Pfeifer G.
        • Lauer G.
        • Eckelt U.
        Analysis of complications in fractures of the mandibular angle—a study with finite element computation and evaluation of data of 277 patients.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003; 31: 290-295
        • Al-Moraissi E.A.
        • Ellis 3rd, E.
        What method for management of unilateral mandibular angle fractures has the lowest rate of postoperative complications? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 72: 2197-2211
        • Moreno J.C.
        • Fernandez A.
        • Ortiz J.A.
        • Montalvo J.J.
        Complication rates associated with different treatments for mandibular fractures.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 58 (discussion 280-271): 273-280
        • Daif E.T.
        Correlation of plates’ number with complications of osteosynthesis in mandibular fractures.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25: e526-e529
        • Campbell C.A.
        • Lin K.Y.
        Complications of rigid internal fixation.
        Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2009; 2: 41-47
      1. Cienfuegos R. CC, Ellis E 3rd., Kushner G. In: Aniceto G.A. FM, ed. Vol 2017:AO - Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen. https://www2.aofoundation.org/wps/portal/surgery?showPage=redfix&bone=CMF&segment=Mandible&classification=91-Special%20considerations&treatment=&method=Special%20considerations &implantstype=hidden&approach=&redfix_url=1285234128064

        • Hallikainen D.
        History of panoramic radiography.
        Acta Radiologica. 1996; 37: 441-445
        • Adibi S.
        • Zhang W.
        • Servos T.
        • O'Neill P.N.
        Cone beam computed tomography in dentistry: what dental educators and learners should know.
        J Dent Educ. 2012; 76: 1437-1442
        • Choi J.W.
        Assessment of panoramic radiography as a national oral examination tool: review of the literature.
        Imaging Sci Dent. 2011; 41: 1-6
        • Jorge J.R.
        • Barao V.A.
        • Delben J.A.
        • Faverani L.P.
        • Queiroz T.P.
        • Assuncao W.G.
        Titanium in dentistry: historical development, state of the art and future perspectives.
        J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013; 13: 71-77
        • Radzi S.
        • Cowin G.
        • Robinson M.
        • et al.
        Metal artifacts from titanium and steel screws in CT, 1.5 T and 3 T MR images of the tibial pilon: a quantitative assessment in 3-D.
        Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2014; 4: 163-172
        • Nardi C.
        • Molteni R.
        • Lorini C.
        • et al.
        Motion artefacts in cone beam CT: an in vitro study about the effects on the images.
        Br J Radiol. 2016; 8920150687
        • Peltola E.M.
        • Makela T.
        • Haapamaki V.
        • et al.
        CT of facial fracture fixation: an experimental study of artefact reducing methods.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017; 4620160261
        • Schulze R.K.
        • Berndt D.
        • d'Hoedt B.
        On cone-beam computed tomography artifacts induced by titanium implants.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 100-107
        • Rushton V.E.
        • Horner K.
        The use of panoramic radiology in dental practice.
        J Dent. 1996; 24: 185-201
        • Fadili A.
        • Alehyane N.
        • Halimi A.
        • Zaoui F.
        An alternative approach to assessing volume-of-interest accuracy using CBCT and ImageJ software: in vitro study.
        Adv Radiol. 2015; 2015: 5
        • Sandborg M.
        • Carlsson G.A.
        • Persliden J.
        • Dance D.R.
        Comparison of different materials for test phantoms in diagnostic radiology.
        Radiat Prot Dosim. 1993; 49: 3
        • Ellis 3rd, E.
        Management of fractures through the angle of the mandible.
        Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2009; 21: 163-174
        • Carinci F.
        • Arduin L.
        • Pagliaro F.
        • Zollino I.
        • Brunelli G.
        • Cenzi R.
        Scoring mandibular fractures: a tool for staging diagnosis, planning treatment, and predicting prognosis.
        J Trauma. 2009; 66: 215-219
        • Cornelius C.P.
        • Audige L.
        • Kunz C.
        • et al.
        The comprehensive AOCMF Classification System: mandible fractures—level 2 tutorial.
        Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2014; 7: S015-S030
        • Obuchowski N.A.
        Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 175: 603-608
        • Obuchowski N.A.
        ROC analysis.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184: 364-372
        • Landis J.R.
        • Koch G.G.
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
        • Moshfeghi M.
        • Tavakoli M.A.
        • Ghaznavi D.
        • Ghaznavi A.
        Effect of slice thickness on the accuracy of linear measurements made on cone beam computed tomography images (in vitro).
        J Dent Sch. 2016; 34: 8
        • Bosanquet A.G.
        • Goss A.N.
        The sheep as a model for temporomandibular-joint surgery.
        Int J Oral Max Surg. 1987; 16: 600-603
        • Sartoretto S.C.
        • Uzeda M.J.
        • Miguel F.B.
        • Nascimento J.R.
        • Ascoli F.
        • Calasans-Maia M.D.
        Sheep as an experimental model for biomaterial implant evaluation.
        Acta Ortop Bras. 2016; 24: 262-266
        • Singh V.
        • Khatana S.
        • Bhagol A.
        Superior border versus inferior border fixation in displaced mandibular angle fractures: prospective randomized comparative study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 43: 834-840
        • Cho J.Y.
        • Jeong C.H.
        • Lee W.Y.
        • Kim H.M.
        • Ryu J.Y.
        • Yang S.W.
        The effect of an interfragmentary gap on the clinical outcome after mandibular angle fracture surgery.
        Dent Traumatol. 2017; 33: 27-31
        • Palma L.F.
        • Buck A.F.
        • Kfouri F.A.
        • Blachman I.T.
        • Lombardi L.A.
        • Cavalli M.A.
        Evaluation of retromolar canals on cone beam computerized tomography scans and digital panoramic radiographs.
        Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;
        • Wenzel A.
        • Moystad A.
        Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review.
        Acta Odontol Scand. 2010; 68: 106-114
        • De Vos W.
        • Casselman J.
        • Swennen G.R.
        Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 38: 609-625
        • Hendee W.R.
        • O'Connor M.K.
        Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy.
        Radiology. 2012; 264: 312-321