Advertisement

In vivo comparison of MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analysis: beginning of a non-ionizing diagnostic era in craniomaxillofacial imaging?

  • Alexander Juerchott
  • Christian Freudlsperger
  • Dorothea Weber
  • Johann M. E. Jende
  • Muhammad Abdullah Saleem
  • Sebastian Zingler
  • Christopher J. Lux
  • Martin Bendszus
  • Sabine Heiland
  • Tim HilgenfeldEmail author
Head and Neck
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can serve as an alternative diagnostic tool to the “gold standard” cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in 3D cephalometric analysis.

Methods

In this prospective feasibility study, 12 patients (8 males, 4 females; mean age ± SD, 26.1 years ± 6.6) underwent 3D MRI and CBCT before orthognathic surgery. 3D cephalometric analysis was performed twice by two independent observers on both modalities. For each dataset, 27 cephalometric landmarks were defined from which 35 measurements (17 angles, 18 distances) were calculated. Statistical analyses included the calculation of Euclidean distances, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman analysis, and equivalence testing (linear mixed effects model) with a predefined equivalence margin of ± 1°/1 mm.

Results

Analysis of reliability for CBCT vs. MRI (intra-rater I/intra-rater II/inter-rater) revealed Euclidean distances of 0.86/0.86/0.98 mm vs. 0.93/0.99/1.10 mm for landmarks, ICCs of 0.990/0.980/0.986 vs. 0.982/0.978/0.980 for angles, and ICCs of 0.992/0.988/0.989 vs. 0.991/0.985/0.988 for distances. Bland-Altman analysis showed high levels of agreement between CBCT and MRI with bias values (95% levels of agreement) of 0.03° (− 1.49; 1.54) for angles and 0.02 mm (− 1.44; 1.47) for distances. In the linear mixed effects model, the mean values of CBCT and MRI measurements were equivalent.

Conclusion

This feasibility study indicates that MRI enables reliable 3D cephalometric analysis with excellent agreement to corresponding measurements on CBCT. Thus, MRI could serve as a non-ionizing alternative to CBCT for treatment planning and monitoring in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Key Points

• Clinically established 3D cephalometric measurements performed on MRI are highly reliable and show an excellent agreement with CBCT (gold standard).

• The MRI technique applied in this study could be used as a non-ionizing diagnostic tool in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery.

• Since most patients benefiting from 3D cephalometry are young in age, the use of MRI could substantially contribute to radiation protection and open up new possibilities for treatment monitoring.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Cone-beam computed tomography Orthodontics Orthognathic surgery Oral and maxillofacial surgeons 

Abbreviations

2D

Two-dimensional

3D

Three-dimensional

CBCT

Cone-beam computed tomography

CI

Confidence interval

FOV

Field of view

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

MSVAT

Multiple slab acquisition with view angle tilting

SPACE

Sampling perfection with application optimized contrasts using different flip angle evolution

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Dietmar Hopp Foundation for their generous support of this research project and Mathias Nittka from Siemens Healthcare for his cooperation and assistance in the setup of the MSVAT-SPACE sequence.

Funding information

This work was supported by a grant from the Dietmar Hopp Foundation (grant number: 23011228; grant holders: AJ, SH, SZ, CJL). AJ receives funding from a postdoctoral fellowship of the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Tim Hilgenfeld.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise (Dorothea Weber).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 60:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod 60:505–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broadbent BH (1931) A new X-ray technique and its application in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 1:45–60Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L (2007) Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshoj M, Melsen B (2008) Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:798–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Vlijmen OJ, Berge SJ, Swennen GR, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2009) Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moyers RE, Bookstein FL (1979) The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 75:599–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ahlqvist J, Eliasson S, Welander U (1986) The effect of projection errors on cephalometric length measurements. Eur J Orthod 8:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown AA, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG (2009) Linear accuracy of cone beam CT derived 3D images. Angle Orthod 79:150–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia-Sanz V, Bellot-Arcis C, Hernandez V, Serrano-Sanchez P, Guarinos J, Paredes-Gallardo V (2017) Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography for linear and volumetric mandibular condyle measurements. A Human Cadaver Study. Sci Rep 7:11993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G (2009) Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position. Eur J Orthod 31:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olmez H, Gorgulu S, Akin E, Bengi AO, Tekdemir I, Ors F (2011) Measurement accuracy of a computer-assisted three-dimensional analysis and a conventional two-dimensional method. Angle Orthod 81:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazao DC, McNamara JA Jr, Manzi FR (2011) Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans. Angle Orthod 81:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gateno J, Xia JJ, Teichgraeber JF (2011) Effect of facial asymmetry on 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional cephalometric measurements. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B et al (2012) Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 81:267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stratis A, Zhang G, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H (2019) The growing concern of radiation dose in paediatric dental and maxillofacial CBCT: an easy guide for daily practice. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06287-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pittayapat P, Limchaichana-Bolstad N, Willems G, Jacobs R (2014) Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 17:69–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim HS, Kim GT, Kim S, Lee JW, Kim EC, Kwon YD (2016) Three-dimensional evaluation of the pharyngeal airway using cone-beam computed tomography following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery in skeletal class III patients. Clin Oral Investig 20:915–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The Image Gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:273–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prager M, Heiland S, Gareis D, Hilgenfeld T, Bendszus M, Gaudino C (2015) Dental MRI using a dedicated RF-coil at 3 Tesla. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43:2175–2182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sedlacik J, Kutzner D, Khokale A et al (2016) Optimized 14 + 1 receive coil array and position system for 3D high-resolution MRI of dental and maxillomandibular structures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 45:20150177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flügge T, Hövener JB, Ludwig U et al (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging of intraoral hard and soft tissues using an intraoral coil and FLASH sequences. Eur Radiol 26:4616–4623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Assaf AT, Zrnc TA, Remus CC et al (2014) Evaluation of four different optimized magnetic-resonance-imaging sequences for visualization of dental and maxillo-mandibular structures at 3 T. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42:1356–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hilgenfeld T, Kastel T, Heil A et al (2018) High-resolution dental magnetic resonance imaging for planning palatal graft surgery-a clinical pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 45:462–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Juerchott A, Saleem MA, Hilgenfeld T et al (2018) 3D cephalometric analysis using magnetic resonance imaging: validation of accuracy and reproducibility. Sci Rep 8:13029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hilgenfeld T, Prager M, Heil A et al (2017) PETRA, MSVAT-SPACE and SEMAC sequences for metal artefact reduction in dental MR imaging. Eur Radiol 27:5104–5112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moreira CR, Sales MA, Lopes PM, Cavalcanti MG (2009) Assessment of linear and angular measurements on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108:430–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kapila SD, Nervina JM (2015) CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20140282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pauwels R, Cockmartin L, Ivanauskaite D et al (2014) Estimating cancer risk from dental cone-beam CT exposures based on skin dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 59:3877–3891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ludlow JB, Walker C (2013) Assessment of phantom dosimetry and image quality of i-CAT FLX cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:802–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Scarfe WC et al (2017) 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2274-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (2013) Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. [corrected]. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116:238–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC (2008) Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37:80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smektala T, Jedrzejewski M, Szyndel J, Sporniak-Tutak K, Olszewski R (2014) Experimental and clinical assessment of three-dimensional cephalometry: a systematic review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42:1795–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schlicher W, Nielsen I, Huang JC, Maki K, Hatcher DC, Miller AJ (2012) Consistency and precision of landmark identification in three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography scans. Eur J Orthod 34:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y (2011) Reliability and the smallest detectable difference of measurements on 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140:e107–e114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG (2008) Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod 78:387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Markic G, Müller L, Patcas R et al (2015) Assessing the length of the mandibular ramus and the condylar process: a comparison of OPG, CBCT, CT, MRI, and lateral cephalometric measurements. Eur J Orthod 37:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eggers G, Rieker M, Kress B, Fiebach J, Dickhaus H, Hassfeld S (2005) Artefacts in magnetic resonance imaging caused by dental material. MAGMA 18:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Juerchott
    • 1
  • Christian Freudlsperger
    • 2
  • Dorothea Weber
    • 3
  • Johann M. E. Jende
    • 1
  • Muhammad Abdullah Saleem
    • 4
  • Sebastian Zingler
    • 5
  • Christopher J. Lux
    • 5
  • Martin Bendszus
    • 1
  • Sabine Heiland
    • 4
  • Tim Hilgenfeld
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI)Heidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  4. 4.Section of Experimental Radiology, Department of NeuroradiologyHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  5. 5.Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopaedicsHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations