AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with computed tomography (CT) for dental implant planning in respect to bone measurements. METHODS: Five dry mandibles were submitted to MRI and CT examinations. Each mandible had three specific sites identified with markers, in a total of 15 sites to be studied. The images provided by the MRI and CT examinations were delivered to four specialists in Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology to measure the bone height at the specific sites. Subsequently, the bone height of the dry mandibles was directly measured in the determined sites. The measurements obtained by the specialists in MRI and CT images were compared with the measurements obtained directly from the dry mandibles using the ANOVA test with a 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: The differences between the measurements obtained directly from the dry mandibles and the measurements from the MRI exams varied from 0.13 to 1.67 mm, with 10 sites being overestimated in MRI exams and five sites being underestimated. The differences between the measurements from the dry mandibles and CT exams varied from 0.02 to 1.25 mm, with nine sites being overestimated in CT exams and six sites being underestimated. The differences between the measurements from the MRI and CT exams varied from 0.03 to 1.00 mm, with nine sites giving higher values in MRI exams and six sites giving higher values in CT exams. There were no statistically significant differences between the three grous of measurements (P=0.98). CONCLUSION: The MRI, when compared with CT, shown to be reliable in respect to bone measurements for dental implant planning.
AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with computed tomography (CT) for dental implant planning in respect to bone measurements. METHODS: Five dry mandibles were submitted to MRI and CT examinations. Each mandible had three specific sites identified with markers, in a total of 15 sites to be studied. The images provided by the MRI and CT examinations were delivered to four specialists in Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology to measure the bone height at the specific sites. Subsequently, the bone height of the dry mandibles was directly measured in the determined sites. The measurements obtained by the specialists in MRI and CT images were compared with the measurements obtained directly from the dry mandibles using the ANOVA test with a 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: The differences between the measurements obtained directly from the dry mandibles and the measurements from the MRI exams varied from 0.13 to 1.67 mm, with 10 sites being overestimated in MRI exams and five sites being underestimated. The differences between the measurements from the dry mandibles and CT exams varied from 0.02 to 1.25 mm, with nine sites being overestimated in CT exams and six sites being underestimated. The differences between the measurements from the MRI and CT exams varied from 0.03 to 1.00 mm, with nine sites giving higher values in MRI exams and six sites giving higher values in CT exams. There were no statistically significant differences between the three grous of measurements (P=0.98). CONCLUSION: The MRI, when compared with CT, shown to be reliable in respect to bone measurements for dental implant planning.
Authors: Valentina Pompa; Sabrina Galasso; Michele Cassetta; Giorgio Pompa; Francesca De Angelis; Stefano Di Carlo Journal: Ann Stomatol (Roma) Date: 2011-02-13
Authors: Tim Hilgenfeld; Marcel Prager; Franz S Schwindling; Johann M E Jende; Peter Rammelsberg; Martin Bendszus; Sabine Heiland; Alexander Juerchott Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Fernando Antonio Reis Laurino; Isabela Goulart Gil Choi; Jun Ho Kim; Ivan Onone Gialain; Renato Ferraço; Rainer Guilherme Haetinger; Otavio Henrique Pinhata-Baptista; Reinaldo Abdala-Junior; Claudio Costa; Arthur Rodriguez Gonzalez Cortes Journal: Imaging Sci Dent Date: 2020-06-18
Authors: A-K Bracher; C Hofmann; A Bornstedt; E Hell; F Janke; J Ulrici; B Haller; M-A Geibel; V Rasche Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Alexander Juerchott; Thorsten Pfefferle; Christa Flechtenmacher; Johannes Mente; Martin Bendszus; Sabine Heiland; Tim Hilgenfeld Journal: Int J Oral Sci Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 6.344