Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2025; 14(01): 100-106
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791557
Case Report

CBCT Guidance for Removing Foreign Object from the Jawbone: A Case Study

Andra Rizqiawan
1   Department Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
David B. Kamadjaja
1   Department Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
Dewa Gede Raka
2   Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Resident, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
Kharisma Nisa
2   Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Resident, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
Nastiti Faradilla Ramadhani
3   Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
,
Aga Satria Nurrachman
3   Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Foreign objects lodged in the mandibular bone often result from trauma or dental procedures. Accurate localization of these foreign objects is crucial for guided surgical removal, especially when patients present with persistent pain. Conventional imaging modalities like periapical and panoramic radiographs may not provide sufficient detail for precise localization. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has emerged as a valuable tool for guided surgical interventions owing to its superior imaging capabilities. We present two cases of foreign objects lodged in the mandible, where patients complained of prolonged pain, soreness, and numbness in the right mandible extending to the head and behind the ear. Both patients had undergone previous right mandibular tooth extractions and received treatment from a neurologist without resolution of symptoms. Both cases showed the control improvement in complaints, and no paresthesia or postoperative complications were found. CBCT-guided surgical removal was performed in both cases, revealing a metal specimen measuring 6 × 3 × 1 mm3 in the first patient and a remaining root measuring 5 × 3 × 2 mm3 in the second patient. Diagnosing foreign objects in the mandible poses challenges due to their varied size, composition, and proximity to vital structures. CBCT offers superior imaging resolution, enabling precise localization and assessment of anatomical relationships, such as the distance to the inferior alveolar nerve and surrounding boundaries. CBCT emerges as the preferred imaging modality for diagnosing and guiding the surgical removal of foreign objects in the mandible. Its advantages include accurate localization, low radiation exposure, and cost-effectiveness. Compared with CT scans, CBCT also offers faster scanning times, making it a valuable tool in clinical practice for managing such cases

Keywords

CBCT - foreign objects - mandible - medicine - medical care


Publication History

Article published online:
08 November 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Eggers G, Mühling J, Hofele C. Clinical use of navigation based on cone-beam computer tomography in maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 47 (06) 450-454
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kaviani F, Javad Rashid R, Shahmoradi Z, Gholamian M. Detection of foreign bodies by spiral computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in maxillofacial regions. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2014; 8 (03) 166-171
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F. et al. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37 (06) 309-318
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Macleod I, Heath N. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental practice. Dent Update 2008; 35 (09) 590-592 , 594–598
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Bozkurt P, Erdem E. Management of upper and lower molars that are displaced into the neighbouring spaces. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 55 (09) e49-e52
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Matzen LH, Wenzel A. Efficacy of CBCT for assessment of impacted mandibular third molars: a review-based on a hierarchical model of evidence. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44 (01) 20140189
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Mostafa YA, El-Beialy AR, Omar GA, Fayed MS. Four curious cases of cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (4, Suppl): S136-S140
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Padmashree S, Ramprakash CH, Jayalekshmy R. Foreign body induced neuralgia: a diagnostic challenge. Case Rep Dent 2013; 2013: 352671
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Pohlenz P, Blessmann M, Blake F, Heinrich S, Schmelzle R, Heiland M. Clinical indications and perspectives for intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103 (03) 412-417
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Stuehmer C, Essig H, Bormann KH, Majdani O, Gellrich NC, Rücker M. Cone beam CT imaging of airgun injuries to the craniomaxillofacial region. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 37 (10) 903-906
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ufuk T, Burcu E. Cone-beam computed tomography for oral and maxillofacial imaging. [Internet]. Computed Tomography - Advanced Applications. InTech 2017. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69282
    Crossref
  • 12 Omezli MM, Torul D, Sivrikaya EC. The prevalence of foreign bodies in jaw bones on panoramic radiography. Indian J Dent 2015; 6 (04) 185-189
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Venkatesh E, Elluru SV. Cone beam computed tomography: basics and applications in dentistry. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2017; 51 (3, Suppl 1): S102-S121
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Smith A, Johnson B. Complications in maxillofacial trauma management. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2020; 32 (03) 385-396
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Mischkowski RA, Scherer P, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Keeve E, Zöller JE. Diagnostic quality of multiplanar reformations obtained with a newly developed cone beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37 (01) 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Davis J, Czerniski B, Au A, Adhikari S, Farrell I, Fields JM. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in retained soft tissue foreign bodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med 2015; 22 (07) 777-787
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Rosen E, Venezia NB, Azizi H. et al. A comparison of cone-beam computed tomography with periapical radiography in the detection of separated instruments retained in the apical third of root canal-filled teeth. J Endod 2016; 42 (07) 1035-1039
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Weiss II R, Read-Fuller A. Cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery: an evidence-based review. Dent J 2019; 7 (02) 52
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Whaites E. Essential of Dental Radiography and Radiology. 5th ed.. Beijin, China: Elsevier; 2013: 3 ; 193–195; 206–207
    Search in Google Scholar