Comparison of a 0.55 T dental-dedicated magnetic resonance imaging system with a 1.5 T system in evaluation of the temporomandibular joint regarding subjective image quality assessment and rater agreement.
Donald R Nixdorf, Andreas Greiser, Carmel Hayes, Laurence Gaalaas, Beth R Groenke, João Marcus de Carvalho E Silva Fuglsig, Katrine Mølgaard Johannsen, Cory R Herman, Shanti Kaimal, Estephan J Moana-Filho, Mariona Mulet, Can Özütemiz, Rubens Spin-Neto
{"title":"Comparison of a 0.55 T dental-dedicated magnetic resonance imaging system with a 1.5 T system in evaluation of the temporomandibular joint regarding subjective image quality assessment and rater agreement.","authors":"Donald R Nixdorf, Andreas Greiser, Carmel Hayes, Laurence Gaalaas, Beth R Groenke, João Marcus de Carvalho E Silva Fuglsig, Katrine Mølgaard Johannsen, Cory R Herman, Shanti Kaimal, Estephan J Moana-Filho, Mariona Mulet, Can Özütemiz, Rubens Spin-Neto","doi":"10.1016/j.oooo.2025.02.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to compare subjective assessment of image quality and rater agreement of magnetic resonance (MR) images of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) acquired with dental-dedicated 0.55 T and clinical 1.5 T magnetic field strengths.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Six blinded raters evaluated randomized TMJ MR images from 5 healthy participants imaged with 3 pulse sequences on 2 scanners: a 0.55 T system using a custom-built surface coil for dental-dedicated applications and a clinical 1.5 T system using a standard head/neck coil. TMJ anatomy and image quality parameters were assessed using a three-point scale (0 = unacceptable, 1 = acceptable, and 2 = excellent). Data was pooled across participants, pulse sequences, and sides. Kappa coefficients were calculated for intra- and inter-rater agreement. Chi-square tests were applied to explore differences between scanners. Significance was established at P<0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four different raters preferred 0.55 T images for visualizing hard and/or soft tissue anatomy (P≤.02). One rater preferred the 0.55 T system regarding contrast. No other differences were detected regarding qualitative ratings. Kappa values for intra-rater agreement ranged from 0.49 to 0.70 for 0.55 T images and 0.42 to 0.71 for 1.5 T images. Inter-rater kappa values ranged from 0.02 to 0.29 for 0.55 T images and 0.02 to 0.23 for 1.5 T images.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Images from the two systems were rated similarly. Further research is needed to assess diagnostic performance in patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":49010,"journal":{"name":"Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2025.02.011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to compare subjective assessment of image quality and rater agreement of magnetic resonance (MR) images of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) acquired with dental-dedicated 0.55 T and clinical 1.5 T magnetic field strengths.
Study design: Six blinded raters evaluated randomized TMJ MR images from 5 healthy participants imaged with 3 pulse sequences on 2 scanners: a 0.55 T system using a custom-built surface coil for dental-dedicated applications and a clinical 1.5 T system using a standard head/neck coil. TMJ anatomy and image quality parameters were assessed using a three-point scale (0 = unacceptable, 1 = acceptable, and 2 = excellent). Data was pooled across participants, pulse sequences, and sides. Kappa coefficients were calculated for intra- and inter-rater agreement. Chi-square tests were applied to explore differences between scanners. Significance was established at P<0.05.
Results: Four different raters preferred 0.55 T images for visualizing hard and/or soft tissue anatomy (P≤.02). One rater preferred the 0.55 T system regarding contrast. No other differences were detected regarding qualitative ratings. Kappa values for intra-rater agreement ranged from 0.49 to 0.70 for 0.55 T images and 0.42 to 0.71 for 1.5 T images. Inter-rater kappa values ranged from 0.02 to 0.29 for 0.55 T images and 0.02 to 0.23 for 1.5 T images.
Conclusions: Images from the two systems were rated similarly. Further research is needed to assess diagnostic performance in patients.
期刊介绍:
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology is required reading for anyone in the fields of oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology or advanced general practice dentistry. It is the only major dental journal that provides a practical and complete overview of the medical and surgical techniques of dental practice in four areas. Topics covered include such current issues as dental implants, treatment of HIV-infected patients, and evaluation and treatment of TMJ disorders. The official publication for nine societies, the Journal is recommended for initial purchase in the Brandon Hill study, Selected List of Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library.