학술논문

Jawbone measurements of edentulous sites related to implant planning using magnetic resonance imaging compared to cone beam computed tomography: An ex vivo study.
Document Type
Article
Source
Clinical Oral Implants Research. Feb2024, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p179-186. 8p.
Subject
*CONE beam computed tomography
*MAGNETIC resonance imaging
*SMALL area statistics
*EDENTULOUS mouth
*WIDTH measurement
Language
ISSN
0905-7161
Abstract
Aim: To compare measurements on images obtained by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cone beam CT (CBCT) for height, width, and area in alveolar bone sites in human jaw specimens. Material and Methods: Forty edentulous alveolar posterior sites in human cadaver specimens were imaged using CBCT scanners, and with zero‐echo‐time MRI (ZTE‐MRI). Semi‐automatic volume registration was performed to generate representative coronal sections of the sites related to implant planning. ZTE‐MRI sections were also presented after grayscale inversion (INV MRI). Three observers measured bone height, bone width 5 mm from the alveolar crest, and bone area stretching from the width measurement to the top of the alveolar crest in the images. Interobserver agreement was assessed by intra‐class correlation coefficients (ICC). The measurements were analyzed using two‐way repeated measures ANOVA factoring observer and image type. Results: ICC was >0.95 for bone height, width, and bone area. No significant differences among observers (p = 0.14) or image type (p = 0.60) were found for bone height. For bone width, observer (p = 0.14) was not a significant factor, while ZTE‐MRI produced width estimates that were significantly different and systematically smaller than CBCT‐based estimates (p ≤ 0.001). Observer (p = 0.06) was not a significant factor regarding the bone area measurements, contrary to the imaging type where ZTE‐MRI led to significantly smaller area estimates than CBCT (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: Bone height measurements were essentially equivalent using CBCT and MRI. This was found regardless of grayscale choice for the MRI. However, ZTE‐MRI resulted in smaller estimates of bone width and area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]