Adepitan A Owosho1, Marion A Hughes2, Joanne L Prasad3, Anitha Potluri4, Bernard J Costello5, Barton F Branstetter6. 1. Chief Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Assistant Professor, Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Diagnostic Sciences, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Diagnostic Sciences, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: anp60@pitt.edu. 5. Professor of Craniofacial and Cleft Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 6. Professor of Radiology, Otolaryngology, and Biomedical Informatics, Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the problems of overuse of medical technology and the current burden of health care cost in the United States, it is important to establish clear imaging guidelines to diagnose conditions such as juvenile ossifying fibroma (JOF). This study compared the efficacy of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of JOF and thus could aid establishing such guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologic criteria were established by 2 radiologists to compare the efficacy of CT and MRI in the evaluation of JOF. The following parameters were compared: presence of a well-defined corticated border, presence of a well-delineated internal calcified component, fluid-to-fluid levels, and anatomic extent of the lesion. Six patients diagnosed with JOF of the craniofacial bones from 2002 to 2013 had preoperative CT and MRI studies available for review. RESULTS: After review of CT and MRI images, fluid-to-fluid levels and anatomic extent of the lesions were comparable on CT and MRI. However, the corticated borders and the internal calcified component were better defined on CT images, which also enabled for distinction between the 2 subtypes of JOF. No MRI characteristics were identified that allowed for this distinction. CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, CT is an adequate and preferable imaging modality in the evaluation of JOF.
PURPOSE: Given the problems of overuse of medical technology and the current burden of health care cost in the United States, it is important to establish clear imaging guidelines to diagnose conditions such as juvenile ossifying fibroma (JOF). This study compared the efficacy of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of JOF and thus could aid establishing such guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologic criteria were established by 2 radiologists to compare the efficacy of CT and MRI in the evaluation of JOF. The following parameters were compared: presence of a well-defined corticated border, presence of a well-delineated internal calcified component, fluid-to-fluid levels, and anatomic extent of the lesion. Six patients diagnosed with JOF of the craniofacial bones from 2002 to 2013 had preoperative CT and MRI studies available for review. RESULTS: After review of CT and MRI images, fluid-to-fluid levels and anatomic extent of the lesions were comparable on CT and MRI. However, the corticated borders and the internal calcified component were better defined on CT images, which also enabled for distinction between the 2 subtypes of JOF. No MRI characteristics were identified that allowed for this distinction. CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, CT is an adequate and preferable imaging modality in the evaluation of JOF.