4.1 Article

Using 3D Medical Modeling to Evaluate the Accuracy of Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Bone Scintigraphy in Diagnosing Condylar Hyperplasia

Journal

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2021.09.005

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By conducting SPECT and CBCT examinations and performing statistical analysis on patients with UCH, it was found that SPECT has poor sensitivity and specificity and is not suitable for evaluating the active stage of condylar growth. However, 3D medical modeling based on CBCT data shows promising prospects for diagnosing condylar hyperplasia.
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in diagnosing unilateral condylar hyperplasia (UCH) and to describe the condylar growth of patients with UCH. Materials and Methods: Using a retrospective study design, patients with UCH who had undergone SPECT and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations at the same time were included in the study. We used 3D medical models based on CBCT data as the gold standard. The SPECT results were compared with the model data, and the sensitivity and specificity were calculated. To further describe the condylar growth activity, statistical analysis was performed, and the P value was set at 0.05. Results: The sample was composed of 75 patients. The sensitivity of SPECT was 55.3%, the specificity was 48.6%, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.53. There was no significant difference in sex between patients with and without active growth. Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of SPECT are poor, and SPECT alone is not suitable for evaluating the active stage of condylar growth. 3D medical modeling has good prospects for application in the diagnosis of condylar hyperplasia. (C) 2021 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available