Fogorvosi szemle · 2007
[Diagnostic value of radiographic and ultrasonic examinations in patients with sialoadenitis and sialolithiasis].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Szalma József, Olasz Lajos, Tóth Monika, Acs Pongrác, Szabó Gyula
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic role of the native x-ray and ultrasonography (US) in sialoadenitis and sialolithiasis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a period of 30 months 52 patients were selected in a study group with lithiasis and adenitis of the major salivary glands. Panoramic and either occlusal plain radiographs (sublingual and submandibular cases) or anteroposterior "blowed out" bucca and intraoral bucca radiographs (parotid cases), and US were taken of all patients. Further investigations, such as CT, MRI or FNAB were performed to discover probable differential diagnostic problems.
RESULTS: The sensitivity of US for salivary stones was 75.0%, for inflammation was 77.4%. The sensitivity of x-ray for salivary stones was 60.7%. The cumulative effectiveness of x-ray and US for sialolithiasis was 91.3%. In the remaining two cases of sialolithiasis, CT supported the earlier diagnosis. In sialoadenitis, twice FNAB, four times MRI verified the supposed diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the advantages of CT and MR evaluations, sonography and native x-ray seems to keep their priorities as diagnostic methods, because they are cost-effective and easily available in dento-alveolar surgical practice. The lack of intraductal imaging ability might be considered as one of the major disadvantages in evaluation of possible diagnostic alternatives.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a period of 30 months 52 patients were selected in a study group with lithiasis and adenitis of the major salivary glands. Panoramic and either occlusal plain radiographs (sublingual and submandibular cases) or anteroposterior "blowed out" bucca and intraoral bucca radiographs (parotid cases), and US were taken of all patients. Further investigations, such as CT, MRI or FNAB were performed to discover probable differential diagnostic problems.
RESULTS: The sensitivity of US for salivary stones was 75.0%, for inflammation was 77.4%. The sensitivity of x-ray for salivary stones was 60.7%. The cumulative effectiveness of x-ray and US for sialolithiasis was 91.3%. In the remaining two cases of sialolithiasis, CT supported the earlier diagnosis. In sialoadenitis, twice FNAB, four times MRI verified the supposed diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the advantages of CT and MR evaluations, sonography and native x-ray seems to keep their priorities as diagnostic methods, because they are cost-effective and easily available in dento-alveolar surgical practice. The lack of intraductal imaging ability might be considered as one of the major disadvantages in evaluation of possible diagnostic alternatives.