Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025
Comparative Analysis of 2D vs. 3D Imaging in Diagnosing TMJ Disorders.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Meena Manoj, Qurishi Ahtesham Ahmad, Mahri Mohammed, Bajonaid Amal, Mostafa Ahmed Mostafa Ahmed, Mahgoub Shorouq Mohamed Salah, Jamadar Nilofar Nawab
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) disorders are a common cause of facial pain, and accurate diagnosis is crucial for effective management. Imaging techniques, such as 2D radiography and 3D imaging (cone beam computed tomography [CBCT] and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), play a significant role in diagnosing TMJ disorders.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparative analysis was conducted on 100 patients diagnosed with TMJ disorders. Fifty patients underwent 2D imaging (panoramic radiographs), while the remaining 50 patients were examined using 3D imaging (CBCT and MRI). Diagnostic parameters, such as joint space narrowing, condylar morphology, and disc displacement, were evaluated. The data were statistically analyzed using a Chi-square test to compare the diagnostic accuracy between the two imaging modalities.
RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy for detecting joint space narrowing was 70% in the 2D group and 90% in the 3D group. In identifying changes in condylar morphology, 3D imaging demonstrated superior resolution, with an accuracy of 85%, compared to 60% in 2D imaging. Furthermore, disc displacement was better visualized using MRI in the 3D imaging group, with a detection rate of 92% versus 50% in the 2D group. The overall clinical applicability of 3D imaging was rated higher by practitioners due to its enhanced diagnostic clarity.
CONCLUSION: 3D imaging techniques, particularly CBCT and MRI, offer superior diagnostic accuracy and resolution compared to 2D radiography in the diagnosis of TMJ disorders.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparative analysis was conducted on 100 patients diagnosed with TMJ disorders. Fifty patients underwent 2D imaging (panoramic radiographs), while the remaining 50 patients were examined using 3D imaging (CBCT and MRI). Diagnostic parameters, such as joint space narrowing, condylar morphology, and disc displacement, were evaluated. The data were statistically analyzed using a Chi-square test to compare the diagnostic accuracy between the two imaging modalities.
RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy for detecting joint space narrowing was 70% in the 2D group and 90% in the 3D group. In identifying changes in condylar morphology, 3D imaging demonstrated superior resolution, with an accuracy of 85%, compared to 60% in 2D imaging. Furthermore, disc displacement was better visualized using MRI in the 3D imaging group, with a detection rate of 92% versus 50% in the 2D group. The overall clinical applicability of 3D imaging was rated higher by practitioners due to its enhanced diagnostic clarity.
CONCLUSION: 3D imaging techniques, particularly CBCT and MRI, offer superior diagnostic accuracy and resolution compared to 2D radiography in the diagnosis of TMJ disorders.