Effect of T1 and T2 Magnetic Resonance Protocols on Bone Volume Measurement and Image Quality During Dental Implant Planning.

IF 1.2 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry Pub Date : 2025-08-29 DOI:10.1922/EJPRD_2907Parize10

H Parize, F Munhoz, C Cordeiro, N Meier, J Kleinheinz, D C Laganá, N Sesma, L Bohner

{"title":"Effect of T1 and T2 Magnetic Resonance Protocols on Bone Volume Measurement and Image Quality During Dental Implant Planning.","authors":"H Parize, F Munhoz, C Cordeiro, N Meier, J Kleinheinz, D C Laganá, N Sesma, L Bohner","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2907Parize10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols (T1- and T2-weighted) with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for measurement of bone volume and image quality in edentulous mandible during dental implant planning.Methods: A phantom was scanned using CBCT and MRI and two examiners measured bone volume (linear measurements) and assessed image quality (visualization of anatomical structures) with 5-point scale. Linear measurement reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient, and group differences with Friedman's and Wilcoxon's tests. The image quality ratings were classified as clinically nonvalid (score≤2) or valid (score≥3), reliability was assessed with percentage of agreement, and group differences with chi-squared test.Results: Reliability of linear measurements was mostly very good for CBCT (0.748- 0.981), good for T1-weighted (0.674-0.924), and fair to T2-weighted images (0.201- 0.851). Significant differences were observed between imaging exams (p⟨.032) and between T1- and T2-weighted images (p⟨.046), except for alveolar ridge height (p=.119). CBCT showed the highest agreement and validity (100%), followed by T2-weighted (80% agreement, 90% validity), and T1-weighted (77% agreement, 82.5% validity), with no significant differences among modalities (p=.054).Conclusions: Compared to CBCT, T1- and T2-weighted MRI protocols had significantly lower reproducibility and accuracy in measuring bone volume, with reduced image quality, especially for visualizing the mandibular nerve canal.","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"228-237"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2907Parize10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols (T1- and T2-weighted) with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for measurement of bone volume and image quality in edentulous mandible during dental implant planning.

Methods: A phantom was scanned using CBCT and MRI and two examiners measured bone volume (linear measurements) and assessed image quality (visualization of anatomical structures) with 5-point scale. Linear measurement reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient, and group differences with Friedman's and Wilcoxon's tests. The image quality ratings were classified as clinically nonvalid (score≤2) or valid (score≥3), reliability was assessed with percentage of agreement, and group differences with chi-squared test.

Results: Reliability of linear measurements was mostly very good for CBCT (0.748- 0.981), good for T1-weighted (0.674-0.924), and fair to T2-weighted images (0.201- 0.851). Significant differences were observed between imaging exams (p⟨.032) and between T1- and T2-weighted images (p⟨.046), except for alveolar ridge height (p=.119). CBCT showed the highest agreement and validity (100%), followed by T2-weighted (80% agreement, 90% validity), and T1-weighted (77% agreement, 82.5% validity), with no significant differences among modalities (p=.054).

Conclusions: Compared to CBCT, T1- and T2-weighted MRI protocols had significantly lower reproducibility and accuracy in measuring bone volume, with reduced image quality, especially for visualizing the mandibular nerve canal.

查看原文本刊更多论文

T1和T2磁共振方案对种植牙规划中骨体积测量和图像质量的影响。

目的：比较磁共振成像（MRI）（T1和t2加权）与锥束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）在种植牙计划中测量无牙下颌骨骨体积和图像质量的方法。方法：采用CBCT和MRI扫描假体，两名检查者测量骨体积（线性测量）并以5分制评估图像质量（解剖结构的可视化）。采用类内相关系数评估线性测量信度，采用Friedman’s和Wilcoxon’s检验评估组间差异。图像质量评分分为临床无效（≤2分）和有效（≥3分），以一致性百分比评估信度，组间差异采用卡方检验。结果：线性测量对CBCT的信度大多很好（0.748 ~ 0.981），对t1加权的信度较好（0.674 ~ 0.924），对t2加权的信度一般（0.201 ~ 0.851）。除牙槽嵴高度（p= 0.119）外，影像学检查之间（p⟨0.032）和T1和t2加权图像之间（p⟨0.046）存在显著差异。CBCT显示最高的一致性和有效性（100%），其次是t2加权（80%一致性，90%有效性）和t1加权（77%一致性，82.5%有效性），模式之间没有显着差异（p⟩.054）。结论：与CBCT相比，T1和t2加权MRI方案测量骨体积的再现性和准确性显着降低，图像质量降低，特别是下颌神经管的可视化。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

7.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.