PURPOSE: To assess the image quality of a high-resolution imaging protocol for the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) at 3.0 T and to compare it with our standard 1.5 T protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen volunteers without history of TMJ dysfunction underwent bilateral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the TMJ with the jaw in closed and open position. MRI was performed with using a 1.5 T (standard TMJ coil) and 3.0 T (purpose build phased array coil) MR system (Gyroscan Intera 1.5 T and 3.0 T; Philips Medical Systems, Best, the Netherlands). Imaging protocols consisted of a parasagittal PDw-TSE sequence and a coronal PDw-TSE sequence in closed mouth position and a sagittal PDw-TSE sequence in open mouth position. Acquisition parameters were adjusted for 3.0 T and voxel size was reduced from 0.29 x 0.29 x 3.0 mm (1.5 T) to 0.15 x 0.15 x 1.5 mm (3.0 T). Total examination time (15 minutes) was similar for both systems. Two observers assessed in consensus delineation, image quality, and artifacts of anatomic landmarks (disk, bilaminar zone, capsular attachment, cortical bone) and ranked them qualitatively on a 5-point scale from 1 (optimal) to 5 (nondiagnostic). Disk position and motility was noted. For CNR analysis, signal intensity from disk and retrodiscal tissue was measured. RESULTS: Disk position and mobility was identical at both field strengths. All anatomic landmarks were visualized significantly better at 3.0 T. In particular, the capsular attachment was depicted in more detail. Overall image quality was ranked significantly higher at 3.0 T, whereas artifact score was similar. Quantitative evaluation showed significantly higher CNR for 3.0 T (10.23 vs. 8.08, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: 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.
PURPOSE: To assess the image quality of a high-resolution imaging protocol for the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) at 3.0 T and to compare it with our standard 1.5 T protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen volunteers without history of TMJ dysfunction underwent bilateral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the TMJ with the jaw in closed and open position. MRI was performed with using a 1.5 T (standard TMJ coil) and 3.0 T (purpose build phased array coil) MR system (Gyroscan Intera 1.5 T and 3.0 T; Philips Medical Systems, Best, the Netherlands). Imaging protocols consisted of a parasagittal PDw-TSE sequence and a coronal PDw-TSE sequence in closed mouth position and a sagittal PDw-TSE sequence in open mouth position. Acquisition parameters were adjusted for 3.0 T and voxel size was reduced from 0.29 x 0.29 x 3.0 mm (1.5 T) to 0.15 x 0.15 x 1.5 mm (3.0 T). Total examination time (15 minutes) was similar for both systems. Two observers assessed in consensus delineation, image quality, and artifacts of anatomic landmarks (disk, bilaminar zone, capsular attachment, cortical bone) and ranked them qualitatively on a 5-point scale from 1 (optimal) to 5 (nondiagnostic). Disk position and motility was noted. For CNR analysis, signal intensity from disk and retrodiscal tissue was measured. RESULTS: Disk position and mobility was identical at both field strengths. All anatomic landmarks were visualized significantly better at 3.0 T. In particular, the capsular attachment was depicted in more detail. Overall image quality was ranked significantly higher at 3.0 T, whereas artifact score was similar. Quantitative evaluation showed significantly higher CNR for 3.0 T (10.23 vs. 8.08, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Andrei Manoliu; Georg Spinner; Michael Wyss; Stefan Erni; Dominik A Ettlin; Daniel Nanz; Erika J Ulbrich; Luigi M Gallo; Gustav Andreisek Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Andrei Manoliu; Georg Spinner; Michael Wyss; Lukas Filli; Stefan Erni; Dominik A Ettlin; Erika J Ulbrich; Felix P Kuhn; Luigi M Gallo; Gustav Andreisek Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Felix P Kuhn; Georg Spinner; Filippo Del Grande; Michael Wyss; Marco Piccirelli; Stefan Erni; Pascal Pfister; Michael Ho; Bert-Ram Sah; Lukas Filli; Dominik A Ettlin; Luigi M Gallo; Gustav Andreisek; Andrei Manoliu Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Hatice T Sanal; Won C Bae; Chantal Pauli; Jiang Du; Sheronda Statum; Richard Znamirowski; Robert L Sah; Christine B Chung Journal: J Orofac Pain Date: 2011
Authors: M Alkhader; N Ohbayashi; A Tetsumura; S Nakamura; K Okochi; M A Momin; T Kurabayashi Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Christoph Stehling; Richard B Souza; Marie-Pierre Hellio Le Graverand; Bradley T Wyman; Xiaojuan Li; Sharmila Majumdar; Thomas M Link Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.528