Dental MRI using a dedicated RF-coil at 3 Tesla

Prager, Marcel; Heiland, Sabine; Gareis, Daniel; Hilgenfeld, Tim; Bendszus, Martin; Gaudino, Chiara

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.011

Cited by 48 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For the comparison of CBCT and dMRI imaging data, we decided to use stone casts produced from conventional polyether impressions. This decision was influenced by several studies which had raised concerns on full-arch intraoral scan accuracy, especially in partially edentate cases such as the present (Di Fiore et al, 2019;Ender, Attin, & Mehl, 2016;Jeong et al, 2016;Kirschneck et al, 2018;Kuhr, Schmidt, Rehmann, & Wostmann, 2016;Patzelt, Emmanouilidi, Stampf, Strub, & Att, 2014;. Therefore, we used conventional impressions and subsequent extraoral scanning, aiming at the highest possible in vivo accuracy for our reference data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) is a new, non‐ionizing imaging technique in the field of dentistry (Di Nardo, Gambarini, Capuani, & Testarelli, ). New developments in coils (Ludwig et al, ; Prager et al, ) and sequences (Hilgenfeld et al, ) enable the production of high‐resolution, artifact‐suppressed images with potential clinical application. For dMRI‐driven implant planning, promising ex vivo and in vivo results have been published for bone height and bone width measurements compared with CBCT (Duttenhoefer et al, ; Flügge et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

Hilgenfeld

Juerchott

Deisenhofer

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Guided implant surgery (GIS) requires alignment of virtual models to reconstructions of three‐dimensional imaging. Accurate visualization of the tooth surfaces in the imaging datasets is mandatory. In this prospective clinical study, in vivo tooth surface accuracy was determined for GIS using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) and dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI). Materials and methods CBCT and 3‐Tesla dMRI were performed in 22 consecutive patients (mean age: 54.4 ± 15.2 years; mean number of restorations per jaw: 6.7 ± 2.7). Altogether, 92 teeth were included (31 incisor, 29 canines, 20 premolars, and 12 molars). Surfaces were reconstructed semi‐automatically and registered to a reference standard (3D scans of stone models made from full‐arch polyether impressions). Reliability of both methods was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Accuracy was evaluated using the two one‐sided tests procedure with a predefined equivalence margin of ±0.2 mm root mean square (RMS). Results Inter‐ and intrarater reliability of tooth surface reconstruction were comparable for CBCT and dMRI. Geometric deviations were 0.102 ± 0.042 mm RMS for CBCT and 0.261 ± 0.08 mm RMS for dMRI. For a predefined equivalence margin, CBCT and dMRI were statistically equivalent. CBCT, however, was significantly more accurate (p ≤ .0001). For both imaging techniques, accuracy did not differ substantially between different tooth types. Conclusion Cone‐beam computed tomography is an accurate and reliable imaging technique for tooth surfaces in vivo, even in the presence of metal artifacts. In comparison, dMRI in vivo accuracy is lower. Still, it allows for tooth surface reconstruction in satisfactory detail and within acceptable acquisition times.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

Hilgenfeld

Juerchott

Deisenhofer

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along with recent technical advances (Flügge et al., 2016; Hilgenfeld, Prager, et al, 2018; Prager et al., 2015; Sedlacik et al., 2016), in vivo application of three‐dimensional (3D) dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) has attracted growing interest in dentistry. This non‐ionizing dental imaging technique has already demonstrated high accuracy and reproducibility in 3D evaluation of periodontal soft tissues (Heil et al., 2018; Hilgenfeld, Kastel, et al, 2018) and peri‐implant bone defects (Hilgenfeld, Juerchott, et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo accuracy of dental magnetic resonance imaging in assessing maxillary molar furcation involvement: A feasibility study in humans

Juerchott

Sohani²,

Schwindling

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To investigate the accuracy and reliability of dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) in assessing maxillary molar furcation involvement (FI). Material and Methods In this prospective study, 22 patients with severe periodontitis underwent cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) and dMRI. For 192 furcation entrances, the degree of horizontal FI was assessed by two independent observers on both modalities. Results of dMRI were compared with CBCT (reference modality) to assess the accuracy of dMRI. Cohen's kappa (κ), sensitivity and specificity were calculated for FI classification. Bland–Altman analysis and the Kruskal–Wallis test were used to evaluate measurement accuracy of dMRI. Results Based on CBCT findings, 93 furcation entrances revealed FI (degree I/II/III: 35/19/39). Intra‐ and inter‐reader agreement was excellent for both modalities (κ‐range: 0.884 to 0.933). dMRI measurements showed high agreement with CBCT (bias: 0.17 mm; 95% limits of agreement: −1.05 to 1.38 mm), and measurement accuracy did not differ among different degrees of FI (p = .67). For FI detection, sensitivity and specificity of dMRI were 98% and 99%. For FI classification, sensitivity values of dMRI were 89%/84%/100% for degree I/II/III. Conclusions Compared to CBCT (non‐invasive gold standard), dMRI demonstrates high accuracy and reliability in evaluating the degree of FI in maxillary molars.

show abstract

“…Along with recent technical milestones, MRI is moving into focus in dental imaging [7]. Modern MRI methods can visualize dental and periodontal structures excellently due to increased field strength [8], parallel imaging techniques [9] and dedicated coil systems [10–12]. Reasons for the lack of MRI studies in orthodontics might be linked to specific requirements that have to be fulfilled to enable comprehensive and differentiated lateral cephalometric analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateral cephalometric analysis for treatment planning in orthodontics based on MRI compared with radiographs: A feasibility study in children and adolescents

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe objective of this prospective study was to evaluate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is equivalent to lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCR, “gold standard”) in cephalometric analysis.MethodsThe applied MRI technique was optimized for short scanning time, high resolution, high contrast and geometric accuracy. Prior to orthodontic treatment, 20 patients (mean age ± SD, 13.95 years ± 5.34) received MRI and LCR. MRI datasets were postprocessed into lateral cephalograms. Cephalometric analysis was performed twice by two independent observers for both modalities with an interval of 4 weeks. Eight bilateral and 10 midsagittal landmarks were identified, and 24 widely used measurements (14 angles, 10 distances) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed by using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis and two one-sided tests (TOST) within the predefined equivalence margin of ± 2°/mm.ResultsGeometric accuracy of the MRI technique was confirmed by phantom measurements. Mean intraobserver ICC were 0.977/0.975 for MRI and 0.975/0.961 for LCR. Average interobserver ICC were 0.980 for MRI and 0.929 for LCR. Bland-Altman analysis showed high levels of agreement between the two modalities, bias range (mean ± SD) was -0.66 to 0.61 mm (0.06 ± 0.44) for distances and -1.33 to 1.14° (0.06 ± 0.71) for angles. Except for the interincisal angle (p = 0.17) all measurements were statistically equivalent (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates feasibility of orthodontic treatment planning without radiation exposure based on MRI. High-resolution isotropic MRI datasets can be transformed into lateral cephalograms allowing reliable measurements as applied in orthodontic routine with high concordance to the corresponding measurements on LCR.

show abstract

Dental MRI using a dedicated RF-coil at 3 Tesla

Cited by 48 publications

References 42 publications

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

In vivo accuracy of dental magnetic resonance imaging in assessing maxillary molar furcation involvement: A feasibility study in humans

Lateral cephalometric analysis for treatment planning in orthodontics based on MRI compared with radiographs: A feasibility study in children and adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About