Journal of endodontics · 2014
Role of ultrasonography in differentiating facial swellings of odontogenic origin.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Poweski Lisa, Drum Melissa, Reader Al, Nusstein John, Beck Mike, Chaudhry Jahanzeb
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Differentiating an acute, odontogenic facial swelling clinically as cellulitis or an abscess has not been thoroughly investigated in endodontics. It has been suggested in the medical and dental literature that the use of ultrasound may aid in differentiating cellulitis from an abscess. Therefore, if ultrasound were more accurate than a blind incision for drainage procedure in locating purulence, perhaps the outcome of the incision for drainage procedure would be beneficial in the resolution of odontogenic infections. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare clinical examination plus ultrasonography versus clinical examination alone in differentiating cellulitis from abscesses in patients with facial swelling of odontogenic origin.
METHODS: Eighty-two emergency patients participated in this study. Each patient was examined and diagnosed by clinical examination and clinical examination plus ultrasonography. An incision for drainage procedure was performed, and a definitive diagnosis was recorded as cellulitis (no purulence) or an abscess (presence of purulence).
RESULTS: With the incision for drainage procedure, cellulitis occurred 37% of the time and abscesses 63%. With clinical examination alone, a correct diagnosis was made 68% of the time. With clinical examination plus ultrasonography, a correct diagnosis was made 70% of the time. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 examination methods.
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ultrasonography to a clinical examination did not significantly increase the number of correct diagnoses.
METHODS: Eighty-two emergency patients participated in this study. Each patient was examined and diagnosed by clinical examination and clinical examination plus ultrasonography. An incision for drainage procedure was performed, and a definitive diagnosis was recorded as cellulitis (no purulence) or an abscess (presence of purulence).
RESULTS: With the incision for drainage procedure, cellulitis occurred 37% of the time and abscesses 63%. With clinical examination alone, a correct diagnosis was made 68% of the time. With clinical examination plus ultrasonography, a correct diagnosis was made 70% of the time. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 examination methods.
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ultrasonography to a clinical examination did not significantly increase the number of correct diagnoses.