• R Javadrashid, D F Fouladi, M Golamian, P Hajalioghli, M H Daghighi, Z Shahmorady, and M T Niknejad.
• 1 Department of Radiology, Imam Reza Teaching Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran.
• Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015 Jan 1;44(4):20140229.

ObjectivesTo compare the usefulness of four imaging modalities in visualizing various foreign bodies of different sizes.MethodsForeign 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.ResultsAll 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

40 keywords...

hide…