Felix P Kuhn1, Georg Spinner2, Filippo Del Grande3, Michael Wyss2, Marco Piccirelli4, Stefan Erni5, Pascal Pfister1, Michael Ho1, Bert-Ram Sah1, Lukas Filli1, Dominik A Ettlin5, Luigi M Gallo5, Gustav Andreisek1, Andrei Manoliu1,2,6. 1. 1 Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of 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 Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland. 4. 4 Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. 5 Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. 6 Psychiatric University Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively and quantitatively compare MRI of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) at 7.0 T using high-permittivity dielectric pads and 3.0 T using a clinical high-resolution protocol. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved study with written informed consent. 12 asymptomatic volunteers were imaged at 7.0 and 3.0 T using 32-channel head coils. High-permittivity dielectric pads consisting of barium titanate in deuterated suspension were used for imaging at 7.0 T. Imaging protocol consisted of oblique sagittal proton density weighted turbo spin echo sequences. For quantitative analysis, pixelwise signal-to-noise ratio maps of the TMJ were calculated. For qualitative analysis, images were evaluated by two independent readers using 5-point Likert scales. Quantitative and qualitative results were compared using t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, respectively. RESULTS: TMJ imaging at 7.0 T using high-permittivity dielectric pads was feasible in all volunteers. Quantitative analysis showed similar signal-to-noise ratio for both field strengths (mean ± SD; 7.0 T, 13.02 ± 3.92; 3.0 T, 14.02 ± 3.41; two-sample t-tests, p = 0.188). At 7.0 T, qualitative analysis yielded better visibility of all anatomical subregions of the temporomandibular disc (anterior band, intermediate zone and posterior band) than 3.0 T (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, p < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: MRI of the TMJ at 7.0 T using high-permittivity dielectric pads yields superior visibility of the temporomandibular disc compared with 3.0 T.
OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively and quantitatively compare MRI of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) at 7.0 T using high-permittivity dielectric pads and 3.0 T using a clinical high-resolution protocol. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved study with written informed consent. 12 asymptomatic volunteers were imaged at 7.0 and 3.0 T using 32-channel head coils. High-permittivity dielectric pads consisting of barium titanate in deuterated suspension were used for imaging at 7.0 T. Imaging protocol consisted of oblique sagittal proton density weighted turbo spin echo sequences. For quantitative analysis, pixelwise signal-to-noise ratio maps of the TMJ were calculated. For qualitative analysis, images were evaluated by two independent readers using 5-point Likert scales. Quantitative and qualitative results were compared using t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, respectively. RESULTS: TMJ imaging at 7.0 T using high-permittivity dielectric pads was feasible in all volunteers. Quantitative analysis showed similar signal-to-noise ratio for both field strengths (mean ± SD; 7.0 T, 13.02 ± 3.92; 3.0 T, 14.02 ± 3.41; two-sample t-tests, p = 0.188). At 7.0 T, qualitative analysis yielded better visibility of all anatomical subregions of the temporomandibular disc (anterior band, intermediate zone and posterior band) than 3.0 T (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, p < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: MRI of the TMJ at 7.0 T using high-permittivity dielectric pads yields superior visibility of the temporomandibular disc compared with 3.0 T.
Entities:
Keywords:
magnetic fields; magnetic resonance imaging; signal-to-noise ratio; temporomandibular joint; temporomandibular joint disc
Authors: Lukas Filli; Marco Piccirelli; David Kenkel; Andreas Boss; Andrei Manoliu; Gustav Andreisek; Himanshu Bhat; Val M Runge; Roman Guggenberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Oliver Kraff; Anja Fischer; Armin M Nagel; Christoph Mönninghoff; Mark E Ladd Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: William A Grissom; Mohammad-Mehdi Khalighi; Laura I Sacolick; Brian K Rutt; Mika W Vogel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Caroline D Jordan; Manojkumar Saranathan; Neal K Bangerter; Brian A Hargreaves; Garry E Gold Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Kawin Setsompop; Vijayanand Alagappan; Borjan Gagoski; Thomas Witzel; Jonathan Polimeni; Andreas Potthast; Franz Hebrank; Ulrich Fontius; Franz Schmitt; Lawrence L Wald; Elfar Adalsteinsson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.668