Abstract
A 36-year-old man was brought to the emergency department after being assaulted. A mandible series showed a nondisplaced fracture through the angle of the mandible extending through the left third molar tooth. Axial slices from a nonhelical computed tomographic (CT) examination of the head as well as a helical CT examination of the mandible failed to demonstrate the fracture. The fracture was well shown, however, on sagittal CT reformations. Although CT is generally regarded as more sensitive than plain radiography for the detection of fractures, fractures may be overlooked by CT if examination in only one plane is performed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Creasman CN, Markowitz BL, Kawamoto HK Jr, Cohen S, et al. Computed tomography versus standard radiography in the assessment of fractures of the mandible. Ann Plast Surg 1992;29:109–13.
Chayra GA, Meador LR, Laskin DM. Comparison of panoramic and standard radiographs for the diagnosis of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;44:677–9.
Link TM, Meier N, Rummeny EJ, Garmann S, et al. Artificial spine fractures: detection with helical and conventional CT. Radiology 1996;198:515–9.
Kalender WA, Polacin A. Physical performance characteristics of spiral CT scanning. Med Phys 1991;18:910–5.
Rehm CG, Ross SE. Diagnosis of unsuspected facial fractures on routine head computerized tomographic scans in the unconscious multiply injured patient. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:522–4.
Kinnunen J. Image quality in radiography of midfacial trauma. Acta Radiol 1988;29:395–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sacknoff, R., Novelline, R.A., Rhea, J.T. et al. Mandibular fracture not shown by axial computed tomography: Benefit of computed reformation. Emergency Radiology 4, 109–111 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01508039
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01508039