Jakob Kreutner1, Andreas Hopfgartner2, Daniel Weber1,3, Julian Boldt4, Kurt Rottner4, Ernst Richter4, Peter Michael Jakob2,3, Daniel Haddad1,3. 1. 1 Research Center for Magnetic Resonance Bavaria, Würzburg, Germany. 2. 2 Department of Experimental Physics V, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 3. 3 Department of Magnetic Resonance and X-Ray Imaging MRB, Fraunhofer Development Center X-Ray Technology EZRT, Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, Würzburg, Germany. 4. 4 Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The precision of localizing the mandibular canal prior to surgical intervention depends on the achievable resolution, whereas identification of the nerve depends on the image contrast. In our study, we developed new protocols based on gradient and spin echo sequences. The results from both sequences were quantitatively compared for their agreement to identify the most suitable approach. METHODS: By limiting the field of view to one side of the mandible, three-dimensional acquisitions with T1 weighted gradient and spin echo sequences were performed with 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 mm3 resolution within 6.5 min covering the mandibular canal from the mandibular to the mental foramen. Aliasing artefacts were suppressed by different techniques. A manual segmentation of the mandibular canal from seven healthy volunteers was performed on this section by three different observers. The surface distance of the segmented volumes was computed between both sequences as well as between the different observers as a measure of equality. RESULTS: The quantitative comparison of the segmentation resulted in an average surface distance of 0.26 ± 0.05 mm between both sequences and an interobserver difference of 0.26 ± 0.08 mm for gradient and 0.29 ± 0.07 mm for spin echo data. By repeated evaluation, a difference of 0.15 ± 0.02 mm for gradient and 0.18 ± 0.03 mm for spin echo data was observed, indicating a slightly higher variability for spin echo images. CONCLUSIONS: Both sequences can be used to achieve high-resolution images with good contrast and can be used for precise localization of the mandibular canal. Despite a slightly increased difference for the spin echo data, the advantage of an easy and robust setup remains.
OBJECTIVES: The precision of localizing the mandibular canal prior to surgical intervention depends on the achievable resolution, whereas identification of the nerve depends on the image contrast. In our study, we developed new protocols based on gradient and spin echo sequences. The results from both sequences were quantitatively compared for their agreement to identify the most suitable approach. METHODS: By limiting the field of view to one side of the mandible, three-dimensional acquisitions with T1 weighted gradient and spin echo sequences were performed with 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 mm3 resolution within 6.5 min covering the mandibular canal from the mandibular to the mental foramen. Aliasing artefacts were suppressed by different techniques. A manual segmentation of the mandibular canal from seven healthy volunteers was performed on this section by three different observers. The surface distance of the segmented volumes was computed between both sequences as well as between the different observers as a measure of equality. RESULTS: The quantitative comparison of the segmentation resulted in an average surface distance of 0.26 ± 0.05 mm between both sequences and an interobserver difference of 0.26 ± 0.08 mm for gradient and 0.29 ± 0.07 mm for spin echo data. By repeated evaluation, a difference of 0.15 ± 0.02 mm for gradient and 0.18 ± 0.03 mm for spin echo data was observed, indicating a slightly higher variability for spin echo images. CONCLUSIONS: Both sequences can be used to achieve high-resolution images with good contrast and can be used for precise localization of the mandibular canal. Despite a slightly increased difference for the spin echo data, the advantage of an easy and robust setup remains.
Authors: B Kress; S Nissen; A Gottschalk; L Anders; C Wentzler; T Solbach; F Palm; W Bähren; K Sartor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-02-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Georg Eggers; Marcus Rieker; Bodo Kress; Jochen Fiebach; Hartmut Dickhaus; Stefan Hassfeld Journal: MAGMA Date: 2005-03-22 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: C Nasel; A Gahleitner; M Breitenseher; C Czerny; C Glaser; P Solar; H Imhof Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: O Tymofiyeva; S Vaegler; K Rottner; J Boldt; A J Hopfgartner; P C Proff; E J Richter; P M Jakob Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Anna-Katinka Bracher; Christian Hofmann; Axel Bornstedt; Saïd Boujraf; Erich Hell; Johannes Ulrici; Axel Spahr; Bernd Haller; Volker Rasche Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 4.668