OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of plain volumetric interpolated breath-hold examinations (VIBEs) for detecting the course of the mandibular canal, and to compare the results with contrast-enhanced (CE) VIBE images. METHODS: From our imaging archives, we collected 28 cases taken with a VIBE sequence both before and after intravenous administration of gadolinium hydrate, and then two observers evaluated neurovascular bundle (NVB) visibility in the VIBE images. For the invisible NVB cases, we identified the invisible areas and analysed the causes of invisibility. For cases that also had corresponding CT thin slice images, we obtained a fusion image between MRI and CT, and investigated the relationship between the NVB in VIBE and the mandibular canal in CT images. RESULTS: The visibility of the NVBs in plain VIBE was 89%, the same as on CE VIBE. There were three invisible cases in each plain and CE VIBE images. The invisible areas were premolar in three cases, and molar in one case, and the causes of the invisibility were a metallic artefact in one case and motion artefacts in the other two cases. CONCLUSIONS: A plain VIBE can depict the NVB at the same rate as CE VIBE, and is suitable for detecting NVBs.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of plain volumetric interpolated breath-hold examinations (VIBEs) for detecting the course of the mandibular canal, and to compare the results with contrast-enhanced (CE) VIBE images. METHODS: From our imaging archives, we collected 28 cases taken with a VIBE sequence both before and after intravenous administration of gadolinium hydrate, and then two observers evaluated neurovascular bundle (NVB) visibility in the VIBE images. For the invisible NVB cases, we identified the invisible areas and analysed the causes of invisibility. For cases that also had corresponding CT thin slice images, we obtained a fusion image between MRI and CT, and investigated the relationship between the NVB in VIBE and the mandibular canal in CT images. RESULTS: The visibility of the NVBs in plain VIBE was 89%, the same as on CE VIBE. There were three invisible cases in each plain and CE VIBE images. The invisible areas were premolar in three cases, and molar in one case, and the causes of the invisibility were a metallic artefact in one case and motion artefacts in the other two cases. CONCLUSIONS: A plain VIBE can depict the NVB at the same rate as CE VIBE, and is suitable for detecting NVBs.
Entities:
Keywords:
VIBE; contrast medium; magnetic resonance imaging; mandible; neurovascular bundle
Authors: Jakob Kreutner; Andreas Hopfgartner; Daniel Weber; Julian Boldt; Kurt Rottner; Ernst Richter; Peter Michael Jakob; Daniel Haddad Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Xin Wu; Eytan Raz; Tobias K Block; Christian Geppert; Mari Hagiwara; Mary T Bruno; Girish M Fatterpekar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: N M Rofsky; V S Lee; G Laub; M A Pollack; G A Krinsky; D Thomasson; M M Ambrosino; J C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 11.105