Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 4/2016

01-07-2016 | Original Article

MRI vs. CT for orthodontic applications: comparison of two MRI protocols and three CT (multislice, cone-beam, industrial) technologies

Authors: Andreas Detterbeck, Michael Hofmeister, Elisabeth Hofmann, Daniel Haddad, Daniel Weber, Astrid Hölzing, Simon Zabler, Matthias Schmid, Karl-Heinz Hiller, Peter Jakob, Jens Engel, Jochen Hiller, Ursula Hirschfelder

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To examine the relative usefulness and suitability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in daily clinical practice as compared to various technologies of computed tomography (CT) in addressing questions of orthodontic interest.

Methods

Three blinded raters evaluated 2D slices and 3D reconstructions created from scans of two pig heads. Five imaging modalities were used, including three CT technologies—multislice (MSCT), cone-beam CT (CBCT), and industrial (µCT)—and two MRI protocols with different scan durations. Defined orthodontic parameters were rated one by one on the 2D slices and the 3D reconstructions, followed by final overall ratings for each modality. A mixed linear model was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Based on the 2D slices, the parameter of visualizing tooth-germ topography did not yield any significantly different ratings for MRI versus any of the CT scans. While some ratings for the other parameters did involve significant differences, how these should be interpreted depends greatly on the relevance of each parameter. Based on the 3D reconstructions, the only significant difference between technologies was noted for the parameter of visualizing root-surface morphology. Based on the final overall ratings, the imaging performance of the standard MRI protocol was noninferior to the performance of the three CT technologies.

Conclusions

On comparing the imaging performance of MRI and CT scans, it becomes clear that MRI has a huge potential for applications in daily clinical practice. Given its additional benefits of a good contrast ratio and complete absence of ionizing radiation, further studies are needed to explore this clinical potential in greater detail.
Footnotes
1
More specifically, the IIS "Project Group NanoCT Systems" (Würzburg, Germany) and the IIS "Application Center for Computed Tomography Measurement Technology" (Deggendorf, Germany).
 
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
Wojtowicz A, Jodko M, Perek J et al (2014) Interactive 3D imaging technologies: application in advanced methods of jaw bone reconstruction using stem cells/pre-osteoblasts in oral surgery. Wideochirurgia i inne techniki malo inwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques/kwartalnik pod patronatem Sekcji Wideochirurgii TChP oraz Sekcji Chirurgii Bariatrycznej TChP 9(3):441–448
5.
Boldt F, Weinzierl C, Hertrich K et al (2009) Comparison of the spatial landmark scatter of various 3D digitalization methods. J Orofac Orthop 70(3):247–263PubMedCrossRef
6.
Greiner M, Greiner A, Hirschfelder U (2007) Variance of landmarks in digital evaluations: comparison between CT-based and conventional digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. J Orofac Orthop 68(4):290–298PubMedCrossRef
7.
Hanke S, Hirschfelder U, Keller T et al (2012) 3D CT based rating of unilateral impacted canines. J Cranio Maxillo Fac Surg Off Publ Eur Assoc Cranio Maxillo Fac Surg 40(8):e268–e276CrossRef
8.
Hirschfelder U, Hirschfelder H (1985) Imaging of the form and structure of the mandible by computed tomography. Fortschr Kieferorthop 46(2):138–148PubMedCrossRef
9.
Hirschfelder U, Petschelt A (1986) Impaction of teeth from an orthodontic point of view. Deutsche zahnarztliche Zeitschrift 41(2):164–170PubMed
10.
Hofmann E, Schmid M, Lell M et al (2014) Cone beam computed tomography and low-dose multislice computed tomography in orthodontics and dentistry. J Orofac Orthop 75(5):384–398PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Medelnik J, Hertrich K, Steinhauser-Andresen S et al (2011) Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images: an in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop 72(4):261–278PubMedCrossRef
13.
Fuhrmann R (1996) Three-dimensional interpretation of alveolar bone dehiscences. An anatomical-radiological study–Part I. J Orofac Orthop 57(2):62–74PubMedCrossRef
14.
Fuhrmann R (1996) Three-dimensional interpretation of labiolingual bone width of the lower incisors. Part II. J Orofac Orthop 57(3):168–185PubMedCrossRef
15.
Fuhrmann R (1996) Three-dimensional interpretation of periodontal lesions and remodeling during orthodontic treatment. Part III. J Orofac Orthop 57(4):224–237PubMedCrossRef
16.
Fuhrmann R, Wehrbein H, Diedrich P (1993) Dreidimensionale computertomographische Darstellung des bezahnten Alveolarkamms. Fortschr Kieferorthop 54(2):91–100PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hofmann E, Medelnik J, Fink M et al (2013) Three-dimensional volume tomographic study of the imaging accuracy of impacted teeth: MSCT and CBCT comparison–an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 35(3):286–294PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hofmann E, Medelnik J, Keller T et al (2011) Measuring mesiodistal width of impacted maxillary canines: CT-assisted determination. J Orofac Orthop 72(1):33–44PubMedCrossRef
19.
Hofmann E, Rodich M, Hirschfelder U (2011) The topography of displaced canines: a 3D-CT study. J Orofac Orthop 72 (4):247–252, 254–260
20.
Hofmann E, Schmid M, Sedlmair M et al (2014) Comparative study of image quality and radiation dose of cone beam and low-dose multislice computed tomography–an in vitro investigation. Clin Oral Invest 18(1):301–311CrossRef
21.
Plooij JM, Maal TJ, Haers P et al (2011) Digital three-dimensional image fusion processes for planning and evaluating orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(4):341–352PubMedCrossRef
22.
Swennen GR, Mollemans W, De Clercq C et al (2009) A cone-beam computed tomography triple scan procedure to obtain a three-dimensional augmented virtual skull model appropriate for orthognathic surgery planning. J Craniofac Surg 20(2):297–307PubMedCrossRef
23.
Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O et al (2011) Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 183(2):144–153PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Hopfgartner AJ, Tymofiyeva O, Ehses P et al (2013) Dynamic MRI of the TMJ under physical load. Dento Maxillo Fac Radiol 42(9):20120436CrossRef
26.
Hovener JB, Zwick S, Leupold J et al (2012) Dental MRI: imaging of soft and solid components without ionizing radiation. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 36(4):841–846PubMedCrossRef
27.
Tymofiyeva O, Boldt J, Rottner K et al (2009) High-resolution 3D magnetic resonance imaging and quantification of carious lesions and dental pulp in vivo. Magma 22(6):365–374PubMedCrossRef
28.
Tymofiyeva O, Rottner K, Gareis D et al (2008) In vivo MRI-based dental impression using an intraoral RF receiver coil. Concepts Magn Reson Part B Magn Reson Eng 33B(4):244–251CrossRef
29.
Tymofiyeva O, Proff PC, Rottner K et al (2013) Diagnosis of dental abnormalities in children using 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 71(7):1159–1169CrossRef
30.
Tymofiyeva O, Rottner K, Jakob PM et al (2010) Three-dimensional localization of impacted teeth using magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Oral Invest 14(2):169–176CrossRef
31.
Tymofiyeva O, Schmid F, von Kienlin M et al (2011) On precise localization of boundaries between extended uniform objects in MRI: tooth imaging as an example. MAGMA 24(1):19–28PubMedCrossRef
32.
Tymofiyeva O, Vaegler S, Rottner K et al (2013) Influence of dental materials on dental MRI. Dento Maxillo Fac Radiol 42(6):20120271CrossRef
33.
Katti G, Ara SA, Shireen A (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)—A review. Int J Dent Clin 3(1):65
34.
Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer Science & Business Media
35.
Bretz F, Hothorn T, Westfall P (2010) Multiple comparisons using R. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRef
36.
37.
38.
Team RC (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013
39.
Danforth RA, Dus I, Mah J (2003) 3-D volume imaging for dentistry: a new dimension. J Calif Dent Assoc 31(11):817–823PubMed
40.
Holberg C, Steinhauser S, Geis P et al (2005) Cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics: benefits and limitations. J Orofac Orthop 66(6):434–444PubMedCrossRef
41.
Vannier MW (2003) Craniofacial computed tomography scanning: technology, applications and future trends. Orthod Craniofac Res 6(Suppl 1):23–30 discussion 179–182 PubMedCrossRef
42.
Douglas WR (1972) Of pigs and men and research: a review of applications and analogies of the pig, sus scrofa, in human medical research. Space Life Sci 3(3):226–234PubMed
43.
Appel TR, Baumann MA (2002) Solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance microscopy demonstrating human dental anatomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 94(2):256–261PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Bracher AK et al (2012) High-resolution ZTE imaging of human teeth. NMR Biomed 25(10):1144–1151PubMedCrossRef
46.
Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Hennel F (2011) MRI with zero echo time: hard versus sweep pulse excitation. Magn Reson Med Off J Soc Magn Reson Med Soc Magn Reson Med 66(2):379–389CrossRef
47.
Bracher AK, Hofmann C, Bornstedt A et al (2013) Ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI for the assessment of caries lesions. Dento Maxillo Fac Radiol 42(6):20120321CrossRef
Metadata
Title
MRI vs. CT for orthodontic applications: comparison of two MRI protocols and three CT (multislice, cone-beam, industrial) technologies
Authors
Andreas Detterbeck
Michael Hofmeister
Elisabeth Hofmann
Daniel Haddad
Daniel Weber
Astrid Hölzing
Simon Zabler
Matthias Schmid
Karl-Heinz Hiller
Peter Jakob
Jens Engel
Jochen Hiller
Ursula Hirschfelder
Publication date
01-07-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0028-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 4/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

Experimental investigation of the fracture torque of orthodontic anchorage screws

Original Article

Effects of rapid maxillary expansion on facial soft tissues

Original Article

Etiology of anterior open bite: a review

Original Article

Friction behavior of ceramic injection-molded (CIM) brackets

Mitteilungen DGKFO

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Original Article

Outcomes of different Class II treatments