ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristic features of oral and maxillofacial swellings that could be seen on ultrasonographic examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients with oral and/or maxillofacial swellings were randomly selected, thorough case histories and clinical examinations were done, ultrasonographic examinations with Doppler imaging were performed, and the features of every group were studied. Finally, histopathological evaluations were performed to identify the final diagnosis, according to which patients were classified into 5 groups; group I: inflammatory/space infection and abscess swellings, group II: cystic swellings, group III: lymph node swellings, group IV: benign swellings, and group V: malignant neoplastic swellings. RESULTS: A significant association (P<0.05), with a contingency coefficient of 0.88, was found between the histopathological and ultrasonographic diagnoses, with ultrasonography having a diagnostic accuracy of 89% in diagnosing maxillofacial swellings. The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography was 100% for lymph node and malignant swellings, followed by 98% for inflammatory and cystic swellings and 92% for benign swellings. The sensitivity of the ultrasonographic diagnosis was 100% for cystic, lymph node, and malignant swellings, followed by 91% for inflammatory swellings and 86% for benign swellings. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonographic features with Doppler imaging greatly aid in obtaining accurate diagnoses of oral and maxillofacial swellings. Ultrasonography is a recommended imaging tool for differentiating maxillofacial swellings and classifying them accurately.
Subject(s)
Humans , Abscess , Biopsy, Fine-Needle , Diagnosis , Lymph Nodes , Sensitivity and Specificity , UltrasonographyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate possible variations in maxillary and mandibular bone texture of normal population using the fractal analysis, particles count, and area fraction in intraoral radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Periapical radiographs of patients who had full mouth intraoral radiographs were collected. Regions of interest (100x100 pixels) were located between the teeth of the maxillary anterior, premolar, and molar area, as well as the mandibular anterior, premolar, and molar areas. The fractal dimension (FD) was calculated by using the box counting method. The particle count (PC) and area fraction (AF) analyses were also performed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the FD values among the different groups of age, gender, upper, and lower jaws. The mean FD value was 1.49+/-0.01. The mean PC ranged from 44 to 54, and the mean AF ranged from 10.92 to 11.85. The values of FD, PC, and AF were significantly correlated with each other except for the upper molar area. CONCLUSION: According to the results, patients with normal trabecular pattern showed a FD of approximately 1.5. Based on these results, further investigation would be recommended if the FD value of patient significantly differenct from this number, since the alteration of this value indicates microstructural modification of trabecular pattern of the jaws. Additionally, with periapical radiographs, simple and cost-effective, PC and AF could be used to assess the deviation from the normal.