PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Som, P M
AU  - Lidov, M
TI  - The significance of sinonasal radiodensities: ossification, calcification, or residual bone?
DP  - 1994 May 01
TA  - American Journal of Neuroradiology
PG  - 917--922
VI  - 15
IP  - 5
4099  - http://www.ajnr.org/content/15/5/917.short
4100  - http://www.ajnr.org/content/15/5/917.full
SO  - Am. J. Neuroradiol.1994 May 01; 15
AB  - PURPOSE To determine whether very radiodense material within a sinonasal soft-tissue mass on CT can be differentiated as calcification, ossification, or residual bone. METHODS We retrospectively described the radiodensities within 235 sinonasal soft-tissue masses as discrete, solitary or multiple, or as a diffuse process with either a well-defined or poorly defined margin. They were also classified as calcification, ossification, or residual bone. Findings were correlated with pathologic specimens. RESULTS Residual bone was underdiagnosed; calcification was overdiagnosed. A solitary discrete density was most likely to be calcification within an inflammatory mass. However, multiple discrete densities were as likely to be in a tumor as in an inflammatory lesion. If the process was diffuse with a well-defined margin, it was most likely to be a benign fibroosseous lesion. If the process was diffuse with a poorly defined margin, it was most likely to be a high-grade sarcoma. Densities within inverted papillomas were shown to be residual bone, not calcifications; densities within esthesioneuroblastomas were calcifications. CONCLUSION Radiodensities may help in refining a CT diagnosis, but one may not know based on CT whether the density is a calcification, ossification, or residual bone.