A comparative study of 2 imaging techniques for the diagnosis of condylar fractures in children
Purpose: We sought to compare the sensitivity and specificity of panoramic radiographs with those of coronal computed tomography (CT) scans in the diagnosis of mandibular condylar fractures in the pediatric population. Methods: Medical, dental, and radiographic records of patients who presented betw...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 2003-06, Vol.61 (6), p.668-672 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 672 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 668 |
container_title | Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery |
container_volume | 61 |
creator | Chacon, Guillermo E. Dawson, Kenneth H. Myall, Robert W.T. Beirne, O.Ross |
description | Purpose: We sought to compare the sensitivity and specificity of panoramic radiographs with those of coronal computed tomography (CT) scans in the diagnosis of mandibular condylar fractures in the pediatric population. Methods: Medical, dental, and radiographic records of patients who presented between 1995 and 2000 were evaluated for injuries involving the mandibular condyle. The sample included 22 males and 15 females with ages ranging from 2 to 15 years (mean, 8 years). Control subjects were added and matched by age and gender. The panoramic radiographs were blocked to allow separate evaluation of each condyle. Representative images from the CT scans were selected and individually photographed for projection. Both sets of images were evaluated by 4 groups of examiners: oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgeons who regularly deal with pediatric trauma (n = 2), community OMF surgeons who had been out of training for at least 5 years (n = 6), OMF radiologists (n = 3), and OMF surgery residents (n = 6). Each image was shown for 20 seconds and the examiners were given 3 options to choose: 1) fracture, 2) no fracture, and 3) uncertain. Results: The overall diagnostic accuracy of CT scanning was 90% (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 87%), and that of panoramic radiographs was 73% (sensitivity, 70%; specificity, 77%). Of interest, the most experienced clinicians were also those most likely to respond that panoramic films were not diagnostic. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using χ2 analysis. The differences for sensitivity measurements using the CT scan were not statistically significant (P >.1). However, the differences in sensitivity measurements using the panoramic radiographs and the specificity measurements using both the CT and panoramic radiographs were statistically significant (P |
doi_str_mv | 10.1053/joms.2003.50134 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73357809</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0278239103001095</els_id><sourcerecordid>73357809</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-594035abe17685e18ae7f74b923a9699ce7c368973f15345024b2137787b475f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhi0EoqUwsyFPbGntOI7jESG-pEosMFuOc25dJXGxE6T-exxaiYnphnvu1b0PQreULCnhbLXzXVzmhLAlJ5QVZ2hOOaMZT7tzNCe5qLKcSTpDVzHuCKGUi_ISzWguZFkJNkfqARvf7XXQg_sGHIexOWBvcY5dpzeu3-ABzLZ3XyNEbH3AwxZw4_Sm99HFiTS-bw6tDtgGbYYxJM712Gxd2wTor9GF1W2Em9NcoM_np4_H12z9_vL2-LDOTEHkkHFZEMZ1DVSUFQdaaRBWFLXMmZallAaEYWUlBbOpYMFJXtQ5ZUJUoi4Et2yB7o-5--CnXwfVuWigbXUPfoxKMMZFRWQCV0fQBB9jAKv2IVUNB0WJmpyqyamanKpfp-ni7hQ91h00f_xJYgLkEYBU8NtBUNE46A00LoAZVOPdv-E_3HCFeg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73357809</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparative study of 2 imaging techniques for the diagnosis of condylar fractures in children</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Chacon, Guillermo E. ; Dawson, Kenneth H. ; Myall, Robert W.T. ; Beirne, O.Ross</creator><creatorcontrib>Chacon, Guillermo E. ; Dawson, Kenneth H. ; Myall, Robert W.T. ; Beirne, O.Ross</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: We sought to compare the sensitivity and specificity of panoramic radiographs with those of coronal computed tomography (CT) scans in the diagnosis of mandibular condylar fractures in the pediatric population. Methods: Medical, dental, and radiographic records of patients who presented between 1995 and 2000 were evaluated for injuries involving the mandibular condyle. The sample included 22 males and 15 females with ages ranging from 2 to 15 years (mean, 8 years). Control subjects were added and matched by age and gender. The panoramic radiographs were blocked to allow separate evaluation of each condyle. Representative images from the CT scans were selected and individually photographed for projection. Both sets of images were evaluated by 4 groups of examiners: oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgeons who regularly deal with pediatric trauma (n = 2), community OMF surgeons who had been out of training for at least 5 years (n = 6), OMF radiologists (n = 3), and OMF surgery residents (n = 6). Each image was shown for 20 seconds and the examiners were given 3 options to choose: 1) fracture, 2) no fracture, and 3) uncertain. Results: The overall diagnostic accuracy of CT scanning was 90% (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 87%), and that of panoramic radiographs was 73% (sensitivity, 70%; specificity, 77%). Of interest, the most experienced clinicians were also those most likely to respond that panoramic films were not diagnostic. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using χ2 analysis. The differences for sensitivity measurements using the CT scan were not statistically significant (P >.1). However, the differences in sensitivity measurements using the panoramic radiographs and the specificity measurements using both the CT and panoramic radiographs were statistically significant (P <.05). Conclusions: CT scans provide consistently greater accuracy of diagnosis, sensitivity, and specificity than panoramic radiographs in the assessment of children suspected of having condylar fractures. In view of the high rate of false-negative and false-positive results associated with panoramic radiographs, coronal CT scans should be considered routine investigation in these patients. © 2003 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:668-672, 2003</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-2391</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-5053</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1053/joms.2003.50134</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12796873</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Child ; Child, Preschool ; Dentistry ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Mandibular Condyle - diagnostic imaging ; Mandibular Condyle - injuries ; Mandibular Fractures - diagnostic imaging ; Radiography, Panoramic ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><ispartof>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2003-06, Vol.61 (6), p.668-672</ispartof><rights>2003 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons</rights><rights>Copyright 2003 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:668-672, 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-594035abe17685e18ae7f74b923a9699ce7c368973f15345024b2137787b475f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-594035abe17685e18ae7f74b923a9699ce7c368973f15345024b2137787b475f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278239103001095$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796873$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chacon, Guillermo E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dawson, Kenneth H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Myall, Robert W.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beirne, O.Ross</creatorcontrib><title>A comparative study of 2 imaging techniques for the diagnosis of condylar fractures in children</title><title>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</title><addtitle>J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><description>Purpose: We sought to compare the sensitivity and specificity of panoramic radiographs with those of coronal computed tomography (CT) scans in the diagnosis of mandibular condylar fractures in the pediatric population. Methods: Medical, dental, and radiographic records of patients who presented between 1995 and 2000 were evaluated for injuries involving the mandibular condyle. The sample included 22 males and 15 females with ages ranging from 2 to 15 years (mean, 8 years). Control subjects were added and matched by age and gender. The panoramic radiographs were blocked to allow separate evaluation of each condyle. Representative images from the CT scans were selected and individually photographed for projection. Both sets of images were evaluated by 4 groups of examiners: oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgeons who regularly deal with pediatric trauma (n = 2), community OMF surgeons who had been out of training for at least 5 years (n = 6), OMF radiologists (n = 3), and OMF surgery residents (n = 6). Each image was shown for 20 seconds and the examiners were given 3 options to choose: 1) fracture, 2) no fracture, and 3) uncertain. Results: The overall diagnostic accuracy of CT scanning was 90% (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 87%), and that of panoramic radiographs was 73% (sensitivity, 70%; specificity, 77%). Of interest, the most experienced clinicians were also those most likely to respond that panoramic films were not diagnostic. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using χ2 analysis. The differences for sensitivity measurements using the CT scan were not statistically significant (P >.1). However, the differences in sensitivity measurements using the panoramic radiographs and the specificity measurements using both the CT and panoramic radiographs were statistically significant (P <.05). Conclusions: CT scans provide consistently greater accuracy of diagnosis, sensitivity, and specificity than panoramic radiographs in the assessment of children suspected of having condylar fractures. In view of the high rate of false-negative and false-positive results associated with panoramic radiographs, coronal CT scans should be considered routine investigation in these patients. © 2003 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:668-672, 2003</description><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mandibular Condyle - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Mandibular Condyle - injuries</subject><subject>Mandibular Fractures - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Radiography, Panoramic</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><issn>0278-2391</issn><issn>1531-5053</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhi0EoqUwsyFPbGntOI7jESG-pEosMFuOc25dJXGxE6T-exxaiYnphnvu1b0PQreULCnhbLXzXVzmhLAlJ5QVZ2hOOaMZT7tzNCe5qLKcSTpDVzHuCKGUi_ISzWguZFkJNkfqARvf7XXQg_sGHIexOWBvcY5dpzeu3-ABzLZ3XyNEbH3AwxZw4_Sm99HFiTS-bw6tDtgGbYYxJM712Gxd2wTor9GF1W2Em9NcoM_np4_H12z9_vL2-LDOTEHkkHFZEMZ1DVSUFQdaaRBWFLXMmZallAaEYWUlBbOpYMFJXtQ5ZUJUoi4Et2yB7o-5--CnXwfVuWigbXUPfoxKMMZFRWQCV0fQBB9jAKv2IVUNB0WJmpyqyamanKpfp-ni7hQ91h00f_xJYgLkEYBU8NtBUNE46A00LoAZVOPdv-E_3HCFeg</recordid><startdate>200306</startdate><enddate>200306</enddate><creator>Chacon, Guillermo E.</creator><creator>Dawson, Kenneth H.</creator><creator>Myall, Robert W.T.</creator><creator>Beirne, O.Ross</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200306</creationdate><title>A comparative study of 2 imaging techniques for the diagnosis of condylar fractures in children</title><author>Chacon, Guillermo E. ; Dawson, Kenneth H. ; Myall, Robert W.T. ; Beirne, O.Ross</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-594035abe17685e18ae7f74b923a9699ce7c368973f15345024b2137787b475f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mandibular Condyle - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Mandibular Condyle - injuries</topic><topic>Mandibular Fractures - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Radiography, Panoramic</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chacon, Guillermo E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dawson, Kenneth H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Myall, Robert W.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beirne, O.Ross</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chacon, Guillermo E.</au><au>Dawson, Kenneth H.</au><au>Myall, Robert W.T.</au><au>Beirne, O.Ross</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparative study of 2 imaging techniques for the diagnosis of condylar fractures in children</atitle><jtitle>Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><date>2003-06</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>668</spage><epage>672</epage><pages>668-672</pages><issn>0278-2391</issn><eissn>1531-5053</eissn><abstract>Purpose: We sought to compare the sensitivity and specificity of panoramic radiographs with those of coronal computed tomography (CT) scans in the diagnosis of mandibular condylar fractures in the pediatric population. Methods: Medical, dental, and radiographic records of patients who presented between 1995 and 2000 were evaluated for injuries involving the mandibular condyle. The sample included 22 males and 15 females with ages ranging from 2 to 15 years (mean, 8 years). Control subjects were added and matched by age and gender. The panoramic radiographs were blocked to allow separate evaluation of each condyle. Representative images from the CT scans were selected and individually photographed for projection. Both sets of images were evaluated by 4 groups of examiners: oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgeons who regularly deal with pediatric trauma (n = 2), community OMF surgeons who had been out of training for at least 5 years (n = 6), OMF radiologists (n = 3), and OMF surgery residents (n = 6). Each image was shown for 20 seconds and the examiners were given 3 options to choose: 1) fracture, 2) no fracture, and 3) uncertain. Results: The overall diagnostic accuracy of CT scanning was 90% (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 87%), and that of panoramic radiographs was 73% (sensitivity, 70%; specificity, 77%). Of interest, the most experienced clinicians were also those most likely to respond that panoramic films were not diagnostic. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using χ2 analysis. The differences for sensitivity measurements using the CT scan were not statistically significant (P >.1). However, the differences in sensitivity measurements using the panoramic radiographs and the specificity measurements using both the CT and panoramic radiographs were statistically significant (P <.05). Conclusions: CT scans provide consistently greater accuracy of diagnosis, sensitivity, and specificity than panoramic radiographs in the assessment of children suspected of having condylar fractures. In view of the high rate of false-negative and false-positive results associated with panoramic radiographs, coronal CT scans should be considered routine investigation in these patients. © 2003 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61:668-672, 2003</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>12796873</pmid><doi>10.1053/joms.2003.50134</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0278-2391 |
ispartof | Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2003-06, Vol.61 (6), p.668-672 |
issn | 0278-2391 1531-5053 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73357809 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Child Child, Preschool Dentistry Female Humans Male Mandibular Condyle - diagnostic imaging Mandibular Condyle - injuries Mandibular Fractures - diagnostic imaging Radiography, Panoramic Sensitivity and Specificity Tomography, X-Ray Computed |
title | A comparative study of 2 imaging techniques for the diagnosis of condylar fractures in children |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T17%3A51%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparative%20study%20of%202%20imaging%20techniques%20for%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20condylar%20fractures%20in%20children&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20oral%20and%20maxillofacial%20surgery&rft.au=Chacon,%20Guillermo%20E.&rft.date=2003-06&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=668&rft.epage=672&rft.pages=668-672&rft.issn=0278-2391&rft.eissn=1531-5053&rft_id=info:doi/10.1053/joms.2003.50134&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E73357809%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=73357809&rft_id=info:pmid/12796873&rft_els_id=S0278239103001095&rfr_iscdi=true |