Evaluation of oral and maxillofacial swellings using ultrasonographic features

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristic features of oral and maxillofacial swellings that could be seen on ultrasonographic examinations.Materials and MethodsFifty 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionUltrasonographic 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.

Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of clinical diagnosis, conventional radiography and ultrasonography (usg) in the diagnosis of odontogenic lesions – A short study

“…They showed the reliability of USG to be 97% in diagnosing all the cases when compared to histopathological or clinical diagnosis. The present study was also found to be analogous to the studies conducted by Abdelsalam TA et al (2019) 20 and Adamu YM et al (2022). 21 In this study ultrasonographic picture of the abscess was hypoechoic, homogenous or heterogenous because of its pus or inflammatory exudate content and the findings were consistent with the findings of Srinivas K et al (2009).…”

Fascial space odontogenic infections: Ultrasonography as an alternative to magnetic resonance imaging

“…These results were in near approximation to previous studies[ 4 , 5 , 18 , 19 ]. One previous study showed a significant association between histological findings and ultrasonography of oral maxillofacial swelling[ 20 ]. USG is inexpensive, fast, more available, and has less risk of radiation exposure to patients[ 21 ].…”

Comparative Analysis of Examination Methods for Periapical Lesion Diagnostics: Assessing Cone-Beam Computer Tomography, Ultrasound, and Periapical Radiography

“…Additionally, US can be used to identify intraosseous lesions, such as periapical lesions, and provide valuable information on blood flow direction using Doppler technology. Combining these features, US contributes significantly to precise lesion diagnosis and aids in developing appropriate treatment plans [5,22,23]. US does not present the same risks as radiological evaluations and can be successfully used in dentistry and oral surgery to image periapical bone defects and lesions [20,24].…”