Low-Field MRI for Dental Imaging in Pediatric Patients With Supernumerary and Ectopic Teeth: A Comparative Study of 0.55 T and Ultra-Low-Dose CT.
Journal
Investigative radiology
ISSN: 1536-0210
Titre abrégé: Invest Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0045377
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Oct 2024
23 Oct 2024
Historique:
medline:
24
10
2024
pubmed:
24
10
2024
entrez:
23
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This study sought to elucidate the diagnostic performance of 0.55 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for pediatric dental imaging, specifically in terms of the image quality (IQ) for detecting ectopic and/or supernumerary teeth, compared with routine ultra-low-dose computed tomography (ULD-CT) of the jaw. A total of 16 pediatric patients (mean age: 12.4 ± 2.6 years, range: 9-17 years) with ectopic and/or supernumerary teeth screened from January 2023 to January 2024 were enrolled in this prospective, single-center study. All patients underwent ULD-CT as the clinical reference standard and 0.55 T MRI as the study scan on the same day. A 0.6-mm isotropic 3-dimensional T1w FLASH sequence was developed with a dedicated field of view of the upper and lower jaws. ULD-CT was performed using a new single-source computed tomography (CT) scanner equipped with a tin filter (Sn100, slice thickness: 1 mm, quality reference mAs: 24). The IQ for the tooth axis, the tooth length, the tooth root, root resorptions, cysts, the periodontal ligament space, and the mandibular canal was evaluated twice by 3 senior readers using a 5-point Likert scale (LS) (LS score of 1: insufficient, 3: reduced IQ but sufficient for clinical use, and 5: perfect) and compared between both methods. Subsequently, the results were dichotomized into nonvalid (LS score of ≤2) and valid (LS score of ≥3) for clinical use. A total of 49 ectopic and/or supernumerary teeth in 16 pediatric patients were investigated using ULD-CT (CTDI: 0.43 ± 0.09 mGy) and 0.55 T MRI. The mean MRI acquisition time was 9:45 minutes. Motion artifacts were nonsignificantly different between 0.55 T MRI and ULD-CT (P = 0.126). The IQ for the tooth axis, the tooth root, root resorptions, and cysts was similar between the methods. The IQ for the periodontal ligament space and tooth length favored ULD-CT by 14% (confidence interval [CI]: 4.3%-24%) and 7.5% (CI: 1.8%-13%), respectively, whereas that for the mandibular canal favored 0.55 T MRI by -35% (CI: -54%-16%). Sufficient IQ was found especially for cystic lesions (CT: 100% sufficient, MRI: 95% sufficient), the tooth root (CT: 100%, MRI: 98%), root resorptions (CT: 94%; MRI: 85%), the tooth axis (CT: 100%; MRI: 98%), and the tooth length (CT: 99%; MRI: 91%). The findings indicate that 0.55 T MRI is a feasible, radiation-free technique for delineating ectopic and/or supernumerary teeth in pediatric patients. Nevertheless, to date, 0.55 T MRI has not yet been able to provide an optimal IQ for all anatomical tooth and jaw structures. In cases of advanced clinical indications that require optimal spatial resolution, high-resolution CT or cone-beam CT may still be necessary.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39442499
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000001129
pii: 00004424-990000000-00262
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: M.U., M.S.M. and M.K. are members of the speaker's bureau of Siemens Healthcare GmbH. H.-P.F. and P.A. are employees of Siemens Healthineers (Imaging Science Institute, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany). All other authors have no affiliation with any organization that has a direct or indirect financial interest in the subject discussed in the study.
Références
European Commission (EC). Radiation protection. No 180. Medical radiation exposure of the European population. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 2015. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/RP180.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2024.
Mahesh M, Ansari AJ, Mettler FA Jr. Patient exposure from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures in the United States and worldwide: 2009-2018. Radiology. 2023;307:e221263.
Kühnisch J, Anttonen V, Duggal MS, et al. Best clinical practice guidance for prescribing dental radiographs in children and adolescents: an EAPD policy document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020;21:375–386.
Murray D, Whyte A. Dental panoramic tomography: what the general radiologist needs to know. Clin Radiol. 2002;57:1–7.
Sams CM, Dietsche EW, Swenson DW, et al. Pediatric panoramic radiography: techniques, artifacts, and interpretation. Radiographics. 2021;41:595–608.
Caiado GM, Evangelista K, do Carmo Matias Freire M, et al. Orthodontists' criteria for prescribing cone-beam computed tomography—a multi-country survey. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26:1625–1636.
Kapila SD, Nervina JM. CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20140282.
Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, et al. Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol. 2018;48:308–316.
Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Scarfe WC, et al. Pediatric cleft palate patients show a 3- to 5-fold increase in cumulative radiation exposure from dental radiology compared with an age- and gender-matched population: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:1783–1793.
Haba T, Nishihara Y, Saito Y, et al. Estimating organ dose with optimized peak dose index in cone-beam CT scans. Phys Med. 2024;118:103215.
Bosch de Basea Gomez M, Thierry-Chef I, Harbron R, et al. Risk of hematological malignancies from CT radiation exposure in children, adolescents and young adults. Nat Med. 2023;29:3111–3119.
Hauptmann M, Byrnes G, Cardis E, et al. Brain cancer after radiation exposure from CT examinations of children and young adults: results from the EPI-CT cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:45–53.
Vogiatzi T, Menz R, Verna C, et al. Effect of field of view (FOV) positioning and shielding on radiation dose in paediatric CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2022;51:20210316.
Runge VM, Heverhagen JT. The clinical utility of magnetic resonance imaging according to field strength, specifically addressing the breadth of current state-of-the-art systems, which include 0.55 T, 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T. Invest Radiol. 2022;57:1–12.
Flügge T, Gross C, Ludwig U, et al. Dental MRI-only a future vision or standard of care? A literature review on current indications and applications of MRI in dentistry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023;52:20220333.
Tymofiyeva O, Proff PC, Rottner K, et al. Diagnosis of dental abnormalities in children using 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:1159–1169.
Tymofiyeva O, Rottner K, Jakob PM, et al. Three-dimensional localization of impacted teeth using magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14:169–176.
De Tobel J, Parmentier GIL, Phlypo I, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of third molars in forensic age estimation: comparison of the Ghent and Graz protocols focusing on apical closure. Int J Leg Med. 2019;133:583–592.
Kirnbauer B, Jakse N, Rugani P, et al. Assessment of impacted and partially impacted lower third molars with panoramic radiography compared to MRI—a proof of principle study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47:20170371.
Kopp M, Wiesmueller M, Buchbender M, et al. MRI of temporomandibular joint disorders: a comparative study of 0.55 T and 1.5 T MRI. Invest Radiol. 2024;59:223–229.
Wiesmueller M, Kopp M, Sievert M, et al. Comparison of vestibular schwannoma visualization between 0.55 T and 1.5 T MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2023;165:110927.
Donners R, Vosshenrich J, Gutzeit A, et al. New-generation 0.55 T MRI of the knee-initial clinical experience and comparison with 3 T MRI. Invest Radiol. 2024;59:298–305.
Heiss R, Nagel AM, Laun FB, et al. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging: a new generation of breakthrough technology in clinical imaging. Invest Radiol. 2021;56:726–733.
Runge VM, Heverhagen JT. Advocating the development of next-generation, advanced-design low-field magnetic resonance systems. Invest Radiol. 2020;55:747–753.
Lakens D. Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology. 2022;8:33267.
Moore CG, Carter RE, Nietert PJ, et al. Recommendations for planning pilot studies in clinical and translational research. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4:332–337.
Hanspach J, Nagel AM, Hensel B, et al. Sample size estimation: current practice and considerations for original investigations in MRI technical development studies. Magn Reson Med. 2021;85:2109–2116.
Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat. 2005;4:287–291.
Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378–382.
Mann HB, Whitney DR. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat. 1947;18:50–60.
Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, et al; CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA. 2012;308:2594–2604.
Newcombe RG. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17:873–890.
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Available at: https://www.R-project.org/.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428.
Lee CKJ, Foong KWC, Sim YF, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) generated tooth replicas with application in autotransplantation. J Dent. 2022;117:103908.
Walker L, Enciso R, Mah J. Three-dimensional localization of maxillary canines with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:418–423.
Willershausen I, Necker F, Kloeckner R, et al. Cinematic rendering to improve visualization of supplementary and ectopic teeth using CT datasets. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023;52:20230058.
Feragalli B, Rampado O, Abate C, et al. Cone beam computed tomography for dental and maxillofacial imaging: technique improvement and low-dose protocols. Radiol Med. 2017;122:581–588.
May MS, Brand M, Lell MM, et al. Radiation dose reduction in parasinus CT by spectral shaping. Neuroradiology. 2017;59:169–176.
Greiser A, Christensen J, Fuglsig JMCS, et al. Dental-dedicated MRI, a novel approach for dentomaxillofacial diagnostic imaging: technical specifications and feasibility. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2024;53:74–85.