High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Temporomandibular Joint

Stehling, Christoph; Vieth, Volker; Bachmann, R.; Naßenstein, I.; Kugel, Harald; Kooijman, Hendrik; Heindel, Walter; Fischbach, Roman

doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000262081.23997.6b

Cited by 69 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The accuracy of representation of anatomical structures was rated from 1 to 5 according to a previously published grading system (1: excellent visibility; 2: good visibility; 3: moderate visibility; 4: poor visibility; and 5: not visible) (complete lack of diagnostic information). 14 …”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 Indeed, recent studies using dedicated surface coils at 3.0 T have demonstrated that TMJ imaging benefits from higher field strength, particularly due to improved depiction of clinically relevant structures and better overall image quality. 12,[14][15][16][17] In spite of technological advances, recent TMJ imaging studies still employ dedicated surface coils, such as the commercially available SENSE FlexMÔ (Philips Healthcare, Best, Netherlands) or custom-made bilateral phased-array coils, respectively. 14,16 However, several limiting factors restrict their use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,[14][15][16][17] In spite of technological advances, recent TMJ imaging studies still employ dedicated surface coils, such as the commercially available SENSE FlexMÔ (Philips Healthcare, Best, Netherlands) or custom-made bilateral phased-array coils, respectively. 14,16 However, several limiting factors restrict their use. These include the availability at non-specialized imaging sites, need for proper positioning, field of view (FoV) and SNR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of a 32-channel head coil and a 2-channel surface coil for MR imaging of the temporomandibular joint at 3.0 T

Manoliu¹,

Spinner²,

Wyss³

et al. 2016

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To quantitatively and qualitatively compare MRI of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) using a standard TMJ surface coil and a head coil at 3.0 T. Methods: 22 asymptomatic volunteers were MR imaged using a 2-channel surface coil (standard TMJ coil) and a 32-channel head coil at 3.0 T (Philips Ingenia; Philips Healthcare, Netherlands). Imaging protocol consisted of an oblique sagittal proton density weighted turbo spin echo sequence (repetition time/echo time, 2700/26 ms). For quantitative assessment, a spherical phantom was imaged using the same sequence including a noise scan and a B11 scan. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) maps and B11 maps were calculated on a voxelwise basis. For qualitative evaluation, all volunteers underwent MRI of both TMJs with the jaw in the closed position. Two independent blinded readers assessed accuracy of TMJ anatomical representation and overall image quality on a 5-point scale. Quantitative and qualitative measurements were compared between coils using t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively. Results: Quantitative analysis showed similar B11 and significantly higher SNR for the head coil than the TMJ surface coil. Qualitative analysis showed significantly better visibility and delineation of clinically relevant anatomical structures of the TMJ, including the articular disc, bilaminar zone and lateral pterygoid muscle. Furthermore, better overall image quality was observed for the head coil than for the TMJ surface coil. Conclusions: A 32-channel head coil is preferable to a standard 2-channel TMJ surface coil when imaging the TMJ at 3.0 T, because it yields higher SNR, thus increasing accuracy of the anatomical representation of the TMJ.

show abstract

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of a 32-channel head coil and a 2-channel surface coil for MR imaging of the temporomandibular joint at 3.0 T

Manoliu¹,

Spinner²,

Wyss³

et al. 2016

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other imaging parameters were a matrix size of 512 × 512 and a flip angle of 90º on all image scans. Sagittal scans were set so that they were parallel to the short axis of the condylar head, and coronal scans were set so that they were parallel to the long axis of the condylar head, as described by Stehling et al (11).…”

Section: Image Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective magnetic resonance imaging study of risk factors associated with sideways disk displacement of the temporomandibular joint

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Its crucial role in mastication and speech production underline the importance of this joint, necessitating an understanding of its complex anatomy and familiarity with commonly encountered pathology (2). Currently, MR imaging is accepted as the most accurate means of noninvasive evaluation of the soft tissues of the joint (3)(4)(5)(6)(7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing MR signal contrast of the temporomandibular joint disk

Carl¹,

Sanal

Diaz

et al. 2011

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To use a tissue specific algorithm to numerically optimize UTE sequence parameters to maximize contrast within temporomandibular joint (TMJ) donor tissue. Materials and Methods:A TMJ specimen tissue block was sectioned in a true sagittal plane and imaged at 3 Tesla (T) using UTE pulse sequences with dual echo subtraction. The MR tissue properties (PD, T 2 , T 2 *, and T 1 ) were measured and subsequently used to calculate the optimum sequences parameters (repetition time [TR], echo time [TE], and y).Results: It was found that the main contrast available in the TMJ could be obtained from T 2 (or T 2 *) contrast. With the first echo time fixed at 8 ms and using TR ¼ 200 ms, the optimum parameters were found to be: y % 60 , and TE2 % 15 ms, when the second echo is acquired using a gradient echo and y % 120 , and TE2 % 15 ms, when the second echo is acquired using a spin echo. Conclusion:Our results show that MR signal contrast can be optimized between tissues in a systematic manner. The MR contrast within the TMJ was successfully optimized with facile delineation between disc and soft tissues.

show abstract

High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Temporomandibular Joint

Abstract: Depiction of the normal anatomy of the TMJ benefits significantly when investing the higher SNR at 3.0 T into better spatial resolution. We anticipate that this advantage of 3.0 T MRI will also permit a more detailed analysis of capsular and disk pathology.

Cited by 69 publications

References 23 publications

Comparison of a 32-channel head coil and a 2-channel surface coil for MR imaging of the temporomandibular joint at 3.0 T

Comparison of a 32-channel head coil and a 2-channel surface coil for MR imaging of the temporomandibular joint at 3.0 T

Retrospective magnetic resonance imaging study of risk factors associated with sideways disk displacement of the temporomandibular joint

Optimizing MR signal contrast of the temporomandibular joint disk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About