Logo-jida
J Iran Dent Assoc. 2018;30(3): 100-105.
doi: 10.30699/JIsdreir.30.3.100
  Abstract View: 507
  PDF Download: 147

Original

Assessment of Frequency and Anatomical Characteristics of Haller Cells in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans of Patients Referring to a Private Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Clinic During 2015-2017

Shahriyar Shahab, Soodeh Sarikhani, Maryam Eslami Manouchehri, Parisa Yazdanpanah*
*Corresponding Author: Email: parisayp@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background and Aim: Haller cells are one of the anatomical variations in the orbital area, which are important in endoscopic surgical procedures and have a role in the pathogenesis of some diseases including sinusitis and chronic craniofacial pain. The frequency of Haller cells has been reported in a wide range, which can be attributed to several factors. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and anatomi-cal characteristics of Haller cells.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was performed on 381 patients referring to a private oral and maxillofacial radiology clinic during 2015-2017. These patients needed cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for various reasons. All CBCT scans were observed by a radiologist. The results were statistically analyzed by Chi-square test using SPSS version 16.0 software.
Results: From 381 patients, 34 patients (8.9%) had Haller cells. Sixteen patients (47.05%) had Haller cells on the right side, 15 patients (44.11%) showed these cells on the left side, while 3 patients (8.82%) had these cells on both sides. On the right side, the oval shape showed the highest frequency (n=9; 47.3%). 36.8% and 15.7% of the right-sided Haller cells were round (n=7) and pyramidal (n=3), respectively. On the left side, the circular shape had the highest frequency (n=8, 44.4%). Furthermore, 27.7%, 16.7%, and 11.1% of the left-sided Haller cells were oval (n=5), pyramidal (n=3), and teardrop-shaped (n=2), respectively.
Conclusion: The prevalence of Haller cells in our study was 8.9%. Genetic and racial factors, radiographic techniques, and the age range of patients are some of the reasons for different results.
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View:

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Download:

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


Full Text View:

Your browser does not support the canvas element.