AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Accordingly, the aim of this study was designed to evaluate the prevalence of accessory heads of biceps brachii muscle in human cadavers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted on 107 formalin embalmed human cadavers (male 62 and 45 female), and dissections were performed in accordance with the institutional ethical standards and the Indian Anatomy Act.
RESULTS: Out of 107 cadavers, three-headed biceps brachii was noted in 18 cadavers (16.82%) associated with the unusual course of musculocutaneous nerve. Rare and unusual unilateral five-headed biceps brachii was noted in one male cadaver (0.93%). All accessory heads noted in this study were supplied by the separate branches of musculocutaneous nerve except the humeral head of five-headed biceps, which was supplied by the radial nerve.
CONCLUSION: Awareness of these anatomical variations, knowledge is necessary for radiologists, anesthetists, physiotherapists, and orthopedic surgeons to avoid complications during various radiodiagnostic procedures or surgeries of flexor deformities of the upper arm and forearm.
METHODOLOGY: Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from nine fresh, unclaimed bodies that were due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP lesions using film and digital PR with a centred view (FP and DP groups); film and digital PR combining central with 10˚ mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (FPS and DPS groups). All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR were analysed using rater mean (n = 5). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was carried out.
RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.16, 0.37, 0.27 and 0.38 for FP, FPS, DP and DPS, respectively. Both FP and FPS had specificity and positive predictive values of 1.0, whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive values of 0.99. Negative predictive value was 0.36, 0.43, 0.39 and 0.44 for FP, FPS, DP and DPS, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.562 (FP), 0.629 (DP), 0.685 (FPS), 0.6880 (DPS).
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of single digital periapical radiography was significantly better than single film periapical radiography. The inclusion of two additional horizontal (parallax) angulated periapical radiograph images (mesial and distal horizontal angulations) significantly improved detection of apical periodontitis.