Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30806799›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2019

Comparative evaluation of SPECT/CT and CBCT in patients with mandibular osteomyelitis and osteonecrosis.

Johann Malina-Altzinger, Bernd Klaeser, Valerie G A Suter, Martina Schriber, Bernd Vollnberg, Benoit Schaller

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Chronic Osteomyelitis of the Jaw. Osteomyelitis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Imaging features of osteomyelitis of the jaws with different diagnostic methods. A review].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Johann Malina-AltzingerZürich MKG, Limmat Cleft and Craniofacial Centre, Hardturmstrasse 133, 8005, Zurich, Switzerland. johannmalina@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4226-586X
Bernd KlaeserDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Valerie G A SuterDepartment of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, Dental School, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Martina SchriberDepartment of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, Dental School, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Bernd VollnbergDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Benoit SchallerDepartment of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

Swiss Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (SADMFR) 17/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTherapy of osteomyelitis and osteonecrosis very often requires surgery. Proper preoperative radiological evaluation of a lesion's localization and extent is a key in planning surgical bone resection. This study aims to assess the differences between single-photon emission computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography when detecting an osteomyelitis/osteonecrosis lesion as well as the lesion's qualitative parameters, extent, and localization. MATERIAL AND

methodsIdentification of candidates was performed retrospectively following a search for patients with histologically or clinically confirmed osteomyelitis or osteonecrosis. They were matched with a list of patients whose disease extent and localization had been evaluated using single-photon emission computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in the context of clinical investigations. Subsequently, two experienced examiners for each imaging technique separately performed de novo readings. Detection rate, localization, extent, and qualitative parameters of a lesion were then compared.

resultsTwenty-one patients with mandibular osteomyelitis and osteonecrotic lesions were included. Cone beam computed tomography detected more lesions than single-photon emission computed tomography (25 vs. 23; 100% vs. 92%). Cone beam computed tomography showed significantly greater depth, area, and volume, whereas length and width did not differ statistically between the two groups.

conclusionBoth single-photon emission computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography could sensitively detect osteomyelitis/osteonecrosis lesions. Only single-photon emission computed tomography showed metabolic changes, whereas cone beam computed tomography seemed to display anatomic morphological reactions more accurately. The selection of the most adequate three-dimensional imaging and the correct interpretation of preoperative imaging remains challenging for clinicians. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In daily clinical practice, three-dimensional imaging is an important tool for evaluation of osteomyelitis/osteonecrosis lesions. In this context, clinicians should be aware of differences between single-photon emission computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography when detecting and assessing an osteomyelitis/osteonecrosis lesion, especially if a surgical bone resection is planned.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCone-Beam Computed TomographyFemaleHumansMaleMandibleMiddle AgedOsteomyelitisOsteonecrosisRetrospective StudiesTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonCone beam computed tomographyMandibleOsteomyelitisOsteonecrosisRadiographySingle-photon emission computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID30806799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.