"A study to assess the use of ultrasonography in detecting maxillofacial fractures"

Main Article Content

• Dr. Sameera Mohd Rehman Qureshi Dr. Himanshu Mahesh Srivastava Dr. Pratyaksha Singh Panwar, Associate Dr. Ashok Kumar, Professor & HOD Dr. Rumiya Ayesha Dr. Mandira Handa, Senior Lecturer


Background:-Maxillofacial fractures occur most frequently as an after effect of trauma. Initially during first century, diagnosis of fracture was carried out using conventional radiographs but it has certain shortcomings which includes high radiation exposure, difficulty in detecting hair line & non dislocated fractures due to anatomical superimposition from the para-nasal air sinuses obscuring the visibility of underlying anatomical structures. At the time of this study the literature was focused more about isolated facial fracture and less about complete comprehensive evaluation of maxillofacial fractures using USG. A radiological confirmation is necessary because missed or incorrectly managed cases may encounter serious consequences. The most common causes of these fractures are road traffic accidents. The etiology and incidence of these fractures vary in different countries. The nasal bone being the most prominent bone is often prone to fracture (39% of maxillofacial fractures). The mandible and zygomatico-maxillary complex play an essential role in facial contour and mastication. A fracture in this area can affect facial appearance, function, and quality of life. To restore aesthetics, function, and quality of life, it is essential to completely diagnose these fractures for effective management. Thus we aim to add on more facts to the preexisting context which may further help to utilize ultrasonography as a first line diagnostic tool in detecting various maxillofacial fractures.

Materials & Methods:-Thirty four patients who presented with clinical signs & symptoms suggestive of maxillofacial fractures having computed tomography ( GE Revolution 16 slice, 1.25mm slices) & conventional radiographs( GENORAY PAPAYA Plus DP-1S )done as a standard protocol for management of maxillofacial fractures were included in this study. These patients were subjected to ultrasonographic ( VOLUSON 730 PRO )examination using 5-7 MHz frequency linear probe by an experienced sonologist who was blinded to the findings of computed tomography and conventional radiographs. Assessment was carried out in real time. The findings of conventional radiographs & ultrasonography were then correlated with findings on computed tomography. In this study computed tomography was taken as the gold standard & sample size estimation done with “two tailed test’ in EPI INFO SOFTWEAR

Results:-The data analysis was performed by diagnostic & sensitivity test. Inferentional statistics was performed using EPI INFO In this study ultrasonography shows sensitivity 86.20%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 20.00%, accuracy of 86.66% in detecting maxillofacial fractures. When correlating the fracture detected by computed tomography & ultrasonography the results were highly significant with P = 0.001893.

Conventional radiographs shows sensitivity 50.57%, specificity 66.66%, PPV 97.77%, NPV 4.44%, accuracy of 51.11% in detecting maxillofacial fractures. When correlating fractures detected by USG & CR the results are significant with P = 0.00467.

Conclusion:-In the present study ultrasonography has shown better accuracy than conventional radiographs in diagnosing maxillofacial fractures. Though CT scan is the gold standard, we had observed that USG is equal to CT scan in diagnosing most of the superficial fractures. Hence with the availability of well experienced sonologist and high resolution transducer USG can be considered as the first line diagnostic procedure in suspected maxillofacial fractures.

Keywords: Computed tomography, Ultrasonography, Conventional radiographs, Maxillofacial fractures

Article Details

How to Cite
QURESHI, • Dr. Sameera Mohd Rehman et al. "A study to assess the use of ultrasonography in detecting maxillofacial fractures". Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 4, apr. 2024. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/5166>. Date accessed: 27 may 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v12i4.5166.
Research Articles


1. Jank S, Deibl M, Strobl H, Oberrauch A, Nicasi A, Missmann M, et al. Interrater reliability of sonographic examinations of orbital fractures. Eur J Radiol. 2005 Jun;54(3):344-51.

2. Zainab Mahmood Al- Bahrany, Lamia H. Al-Nakib. Comparison between high- resolution ultrasonography and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures. Tikrit Journal of Dental Science. 2011;1:6-13.

3. Ogunmuniya SA, Fatusi OA, Ugboko VI, Ayolla OO, Maaji SM. The validity of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. Inj J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Apr;41 (4):500-5.

4. Adeyemo WL, Akadiri OA. A systemic review of the diagnostic role of ultrasonography in maxillofacial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Jul;40(7):655-61.

5. Maha Sallam, Ghada Khalifa, Fatma Ibrahim and Mohamed Taha. Ultrasonography vs. computed tomography in imaging of zygomatic complex fractures. Journal of American Science. 2010;6(9):524-33.

6. Javadrashid R, Khatoonbad M, Shams N, Esmaeili F, Jabbari Khamnei H. Comparision of ultrasonography with computed tomography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Dec;40(8):486-91.

7. S Jayachandra, Koijam Sashikumar Singh. A comparative study on the diagnostic utility of ultrasonography with conventional radiography and computed tomography scan in detection of zygomatic arch and mandibular fractures. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014 Apr-Jun;5(2):166-169.

8. McCann PJ, Brocklebank LM, Ayoub AF. Assessment of zygomatico-orbital complex fractures using ultrasonography. Br J Oral and Maxillofac Surg.2000 Oct;38(5):525-9.

9. Freiedrich RE, Plambeck K, Bartel-Friedrich S, Geese M, Schmelzle R. Limitations of B-scan ultrasound for diagnosing fractures of the mandibular condylar and ramus. Clin Oral Investig. 2001 March;5(1):11-16.

10. Ardeshirpour F, Ladner KM, Shores CG, Shockley WW. A preliminary study of the use of ultrasound in defining nasal fractures: criteria for a confident diagnosis .Ear Nose Throat J. 2013 Oct-Nov;92(10-11):508-12.

11. Jeremy N. Johnson, Daniel F. McBride, Steve Crandall, Christopher Kang. Ultrasound – confirmed frontal bone fracture. West J Emerg Med.2009;10(4):303.

12. S Nezafati, R Javadrashid, S Rad, S Akrami. Comparision of ultrasonography with submentovertex films and computed tomography scan in the diagnosis of zygomatic arch fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010 Jan;39(1):11-16.

13. Al-Hassani A, Ahmad K, El-Menyar A, et al. Prevalence and patterns of maxillofacial trauma: a retrospective descriptive study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022;48:2513–2519.

14. Airan L, Baliga M, et al. Comparision of the efficacy of ultrasonography with computed tomography in thr diagnosis of maxillomandibular fractures. World J Dent 2019;10(3):181-185.

15. Gulicher D, Krimmel M, Reinert S. The role of intraoperative ultrasonography in zygomatic complex fracture repair. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Mar;35(3):224-30.

16. Blessmann M, Pohlenz P, Blake FA, Lenard M, Schemelzle R, Heiland M. Validation of a new traning tool for ultrasound as a diagnostic modality in suspected midfacial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 June;36(6):501-6.

17. Gadicherla S, Pentapati KC, Rustaqi N, Singh A, Smriti K. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for the assessment of maxillofacial fractures: A Meta analysis. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2021;11:503-9.