M Cassetta1, F Barchetti, N Pranno, M Marini. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy;
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study was to compare dynamic and static sequences in the evaluation of temporomandibular joint disorders using a 3.0 -T imaging unit. METHODS: 194 patients were evaluated by static (double echo proton density weighted/turbo spin echo T2 weighted sequences) and dynamic (half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo sequences)imaging. Two radiologists evaluated in consensus the quality of images, the disc position and morphological alterations. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient (τ-b) was used to compare the qualitative rating between static and dynamic sequences. Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) was used to assess the agreement of disc position and morphological alterations between both sequences. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to calculate the intraobserver variability. The significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: The correlation between both sequences in the qualitative evaluation was τ-b = 0.632. The agreement between both techniques in the evaluation of disc position was k = 0.856. The agreement between both techniques in assessing the morphological alterations was k = 0.487. In the static sequences, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.915 in the qualitative evaluation, 0.873 in the evaluation of disc position and 0.934 in the assessment of morphological alterations. In the dynamic sequences, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.785 in the qualitative evaluation, 0.935 in the evaluation of disc position and 0.826 in the assessment of morphological alterations. CONCLUSIONS: Static imaging remains the gold standard in the evaluation of the temporomandibular joint. Dynamic imaging is a valuable tool that can provide additional information about topographic changes in the disc-condyle relationship.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study was to compare dynamic and static sequences in the evaluation of temporomandibular joint disorders using a 3.0 -T imaging unit. METHODS: 194 patients were evaluated by static (double echo proton density weighted/turbo spin echo T2 weighted sequences) and dynamic (half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo sequences)imaging. Two radiologists evaluated in consensus the quality of images, the disc position and morphological alterations. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient (τ-b) was used to compare the qualitative rating between static and dynamic sequences. Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) was used to assess the agreement of disc position and morphological alterations between both sequences. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to calculate the intraobserver variability. The significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: The correlation between both sequences in the qualitative evaluation was τ-b = 0.632. The agreement between both techniques in the evaluation of disc position was k = 0.856. The agreement between both techniques in assessing the morphological alterations was k = 0.487. In the static sequences, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.915 in the qualitative evaluation, 0.873 in the evaluation of disc position and 0.934 in the assessment of morphological alterations. In the dynamic sequences, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.785 in the qualitative evaluation, 0.935 in the evaluation of disc position and 0.826 in the assessment of morphological alterations. CONCLUSIONS: Static imaging remains the gold standard in the evaluation of the temporomandibular joint. Dynamic imaging is a valuable tool that can provide additional information about topographic changes in the disc-condyle relationship.
Authors: Nasreddin D Abolmaali; Jan Schmitt; Wolfram Schwarz; Douglas E Toll; Stefan Hinterwimmer; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 5.315