PURPOSE: To present CT and MR images and compare CT and MRI features of oral and maxillofacial hemangioma and vascular malformation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical materials consisted of nine vascular tumors from nine patients examined by both CT and MR scanners between November 1996 and March 2002. Both CT and MR images were retrospectively evaluated. The following features were evaluated: detectability of the lesion, border of the lesion, tumor margin, inner nature of the lesion, contrast between the lesion and surrounding tissues, degree of CT value or signal intensity of the lesion, enhancement of contrast medium, inner nature of the lesion after contrast medium injection, detectability of phleboliths and detectability of bone resorption. RESULTS: In two patients, we could not detect lesions in any of the CT images because of artifacts from the teeth and/or dental restorations. In contrast, we could detect all lesions on T2-weighted MR images and contrast enhanced T1-weighted MR images. On T2-weighted images with the fat suppression technique, tumors tended to show higher contrast compared to surrounding tissues. CONCLUSION: T2-weighted images with the fat suppression technique and contrast enhanced T1-weighted images with the fat suppression technique were very useful for the detection of vascular lesions. Observation from optional directions (axial, coronal and sagittal images) seemed appropriate for delineating the extension of the tumor. Phleboliths detectability on CT images was superior to that on MR images.
PURPOSE: To present CT and MR images and compare CT and MRI features of oral and maxillofacial hemangioma and vascular malformation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical materials consisted of nine vascular tumors from nine patients examined by both CT and MR scanners between November 1996 and March 2002. Both CT and MR images were retrospectively evaluated. The following features were evaluated: detectability of the lesion, border of the lesion, tumor margin, inner nature of the lesion, contrast between the lesion and surrounding tissues, degree of CT value or signal intensity of the lesion, enhancement of contrast medium, inner nature of the lesion after contrast medium injection, detectability of phleboliths and detectability of bone resorption. RESULTS: In two patients, we could not detect lesions in any of the CT images because of artifacts from the teeth and/or dental restorations. In contrast, we could detect all lesions on T2-weighted MR images and contrast enhanced T1-weighted MR images. On T2-weighted images with the fat suppression technique, tumors tended to show higher contrast compared to surrounding tissues. CONCLUSION: T2-weighted images with the fat suppression technique and contrast enhanced T1-weighted images with the fat suppression technique were very useful for the detection of vascular lesions. Observation from optional directions (axial, coronal and sagittal images) seemed appropriate for delineating the extension of the tumor. Phleboliths detectability on CT images was superior to that on MR images.