Alexander Juerchott1, Christian Freudlsperger2, Dorothea Weber3, Johann M E Jende1, Muhammad Abdullah Saleem4, Sebastian Zingler5, Christopher J Lux5, Martin Bendszus1, Sabine Heiland4, Tim Hilgenfeld6. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI), Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Section of Experimental Radiology, Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. tim.hilgenfeld@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can serve as an alternative diagnostic tool to the "gold standard" cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in 3D cephalometric analysis. METHODS: In this prospective feasibility study, 12 patients (8 males, 4 females; mean age ± SD, 26.1 years ± 6.6) underwent 3D MRI and CBCT before orthognathic surgery. 3D cephalometric analysis was performed twice by two independent observers on both modalities. For each dataset, 27 cephalometric landmarks were defined from which 35 measurements (17 angles, 18 distances) were calculated. Statistical analyses included the calculation of Euclidean distances, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman analysis, and equivalence testing (linear mixed effects model) with a predefined equivalence margin of ± 1°/1 mm. RESULTS: Analysis of reliability for CBCT vs. MRI (intra-rater I/intra-rater II/inter-rater) revealed Euclidean distances of 0.86/0.86/0.98 mm vs. 0.93/0.99/1.10 mm for landmarks, ICCs of 0.990/0.980/0.986 vs. 0.982/0.978/0.980 for angles, and ICCs of 0.992/0.988/0.989 vs. 0.991/0.985/0.988 for distances. Bland-Altman analysis showed high levels of agreement between CBCT and MRI with bias values (95% levels of agreement) of 0.03° (- 1.49; 1.54) for angles and 0.02 mm (- 1.44; 1.47) for distances. In the linear mixed effects model, the mean values of CBCT and MRI measurements were equivalent. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study indicates that MRI enables reliable 3D cephalometric analysis with excellent agreement to corresponding measurements on CBCT. Thus, MRI could serve as a non-ionizing alternative to CBCT for treatment planning and monitoring in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery. KEY POINTS: • Clinically established 3D cephalometric measurements performed on MRI are highly reliable and show an excellent agreement with CBCT (gold standard). • The MRI technique applied in this study could be used as a non-ionizing diagnostic tool in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery. • Since most patients benefiting from 3D cephalometry are young in age, the use of MRI could substantially contribute to radiation protection and open up new possibilities for treatment monitoring.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can serve as an alternative diagnostic tool to the "gold standard" cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in 3D cephalometric analysis. METHODS: In this prospective feasibility study, 12 patients (8 males, 4 females; mean age ± SD, 26.1 years ± 6.6) underwent 3D MRI and CBCT before orthognathic surgery. 3D cephalometric analysis was performed twice by two independent observers on both modalities. For each dataset, 27 cephalometric landmarks were defined from which 35 measurements (17 angles, 18 distances) were calculated. Statistical analyses included the calculation of Euclidean distances, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman analysis, and equivalence testing (linear mixed effects model) with a predefined equivalence margin of ± 1°/1 mm. RESULTS: Analysis of reliability for CBCT vs. MRI (intra-rater I/intra-rater II/inter-rater) revealed Euclidean distances of 0.86/0.86/0.98 mm vs. 0.93/0.99/1.10 mm for landmarks, ICCs of 0.990/0.980/0.986 vs. 0.982/0.978/0.980 for angles, and ICCs of 0.992/0.988/0.989 vs. 0.991/0.985/0.988 for distances. Bland-Altman analysis showed high levels of agreement between CBCT and MRI with bias values (95% levels of agreement) of 0.03° (- 1.49; 1.54) for angles and 0.02 mm (- 1.44; 1.47) for distances. In the linear mixed effects model, the mean values of CBCT and MRI measurements were equivalent. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study indicates that MRI enables reliable 3D cephalometric analysis with excellent agreement to corresponding measurements on CBCT. Thus, MRI could serve as a non-ionizing alternative to CBCT for treatment planning and monitoring in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery. KEY POINTS: • Clinically established 3D cephalometric measurements performed on MRI are highly reliable and show an excellent agreement with CBCT (gold standard). • The MRI technique applied in this study could be used as a non-ionizing diagnostic tool in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery. • Since most patients benefiting from 3D cephalometry are young in age, the use of MRI could substantially contribute to radiation protection and open up new possibilities for treatment monitoring.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cone-beam computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Oral and maxillofacial surgeons; Orthodontics; Orthognathic surgery
Authors: Marilyn J Goske; Kimberly E Applegate; Jennifer Boylan; Priscilla F Butler; Michael J Callahan; Brian D Coley; Shawn Farley; Donald P Frush; Marta Hernanz-Schulman; Diego Jaramillo; Neil D Johnson; Sue C Kaste; Greg Morrison; Keith J Strauss; Nora Tuggle Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Carla R Moreira; Marcelo A O Sales; Patricia M L Lopes; Marcelo G P Cavalcanti Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2009-04-22
Authors: Alexander Juerchott; Muhammad Abdullah Saleem; Tim Hilgenfeld; Christian Freudlsperger; Sebastian Zingler; Christopher J Lux; Martin Bendszus; Sabine Heiland Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mousa Zidan; Franz S Schwindling; Alexander Juerchott; Johannes Mente; Mathias Nittka; Zahra Hosseini; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Tim Hilgenfeld Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Christoph Roser; Tim Hilgenfeld; Sinan Sen; Tobias Badrow; Sebastian Zingler; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Christopher J Lux; Alexander Juerchott Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Mateusz C Florkow; Koen Willemsen; Vasco V Mascarenhas; Edwin H G Oei; Marijn van Stralen; Peter R Seevinck Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 5.119