Andrei Manoliu1,2, Georg Spinner2, Michael Wyss2, Stefan Erni3, Dominik A Ettlin3, Daniel Nanz1, Erika J Ulbrich1, Luigi M Gallo3, Gustav Andreisek1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. 2 Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. 3 Center of Dental Medicine of the University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively and qualitatively compare MRI of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) using an optimized high-resolution protocol at 3.0 T and a clinical standard protocol at 1.5 T. METHODS: A phantom and 12 asymptomatic volunteers were MR imaged using a 2-channel surface coil (standard TMJ coil) at 1.5 and 3.0 T (Philips Achieva and Philips Ingenia, respectively; Philips Healthcare, Best, Netherlands). Imaging protocol consisted of coronal and oblique sagittal proton density-weighted turbo spin echo sequences. For quantitative evaluation, a spherical phantom was imaged. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) maps were calculated on a voxelwise basis. For qualitative evaluation, all volunteers underwent MRI of the TMJ with the jaw in closed position. Two readers independently assessed visibility and delineation of anatomical structures of the TMJ and overall image quality on a 5-point Likert scale. Quantitative and qualitative measurements were compared between field strengths. RESULTS: The quantitative analysis showed similar SNR for the high-resolution protocol at 3.0 T compared with the clinical protocol at 1.5 T. The qualitative analysis showed significantly better visibility and delineation of clinically relevant anatomical structures of the TMJ, including the TMJ disc and pterygoid muscle as well as better overall image quality at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T. CONCLUSIONS: The presented results indicate that expected gains in SNR at 3.0 T can be used to increase the spatial resolution when imaging the TMJ, which translates into increased visibility and delineation of anatomical structures of the TMJ. Therefore, imaging at 3.0 T should be preferred over 1.5 T for imaging the TMJ.
OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively and qualitatively compare MRI of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) using an optimized high-resolution protocol at 3.0 T and a clinical standard protocol at 1.5 T. METHODS: A phantom and 12 asymptomatic volunteers were MR imaged using a 2-channel surface coil (standard TMJ coil) at 1.5 and 3.0 T (Philips Achieva and Philips Ingenia, respectively; Philips Healthcare, Best, Netherlands). Imaging protocol consisted of coronal and oblique sagittal proton density-weighted turbo spin echo sequences. For quantitative evaluation, a spherical phantom was imaged. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) maps were calculated on a voxelwise basis. For qualitative evaluation, all volunteers underwent MRI of the TMJ with the jaw in closed position. Two readers independently assessed visibility and delineation of anatomical structures of the TMJ and overall image quality on a 5-point Likert scale. Quantitative and qualitative measurements were compared between field strengths. RESULTS: The quantitative analysis showed similar SNR for the high-resolution protocol at 3.0 T compared with the clinical protocol at 1.5 T. The qualitative analysis showed significantly better visibility and delineation of clinically relevant anatomical structures of the TMJ, including the TMJ disc and pterygoid muscle as well as better overall image quality at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T. CONCLUSIONS: The presented results indicate that expected gains in SNR at 3.0 T can be used to increase the spatial resolution when imaging the TMJ, which translates into increased visibility and delineation of anatomical structures of the TMJ. Therefore, imaging at 3.0 T should be preferred over 1.5 T for imaging the TMJ.
Keywords:
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); temporomandibular joint; temporomandibular joint disc; temporomandibular joint disorders
Authors: Andrei Manoliu; Georg Spinner; Michael Wyss; Dominik A Ettlin; Daniel Nanz; Felix P Kuhn; Luigi M Gallo; Gustav Andreisek Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Raymond G Hoffmann; Jane Morley Kotchen; Theodore A Kotchen; Terrie Cowley; Mahua Dasgupta; Allen W Cowley Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.442
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