| Study . | Main objectives . | Sample size (n) . | Compared modalities . | Compared parameters . | Observers and qualification . | Rounds of measurements (time between rounds) . | Main findings . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abkai et al., 2021 [21] | Comparison with LCR Ultra short echo time A novel scan protocol was introduced: 1. MRI cephalometric projections in one shot 2. Reduction of repetition and echo times towards an Ultra Short Echo-time (UTE) modality 3. High bone soft tissue contrast | 1 | 1 LCR and 7 MCPs were compared | 14 cephalometric point landmarks, 10 angles | 40 orthodontists with 15 years of experience in Cephalometric analysis | 1 (NM) | 1. Images were acquired much faster in comparison to other techniques. 2. The study demonstrated potentials of new method and showed first feasible results. 3. Further research is needed on it. |
| Juerchott et al. (a) [22] | Comparision with CBCT Evaluated 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. | 12 | - MPR images from CBCT compared with MPR images from MRI - Semi-automatic segmentation of skeletal and dental structures | 27 cephalometric point landmarks, 17 angles, 18 planes/distances | Two radiologists with 5 years’ experience in dentomaxillofacial imaging | 2 (≥ 4 weeks) | High levels of agreement found between MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analyses in vivo. These findings may have a high clinical impact due to the radiation exposure associated with the current reference modality CBCT. |
| Jency et al., 2019 [23] | Comparison with LCR Landmark identification Evaluated performance of black bone MRI as a cephalometric tool in orthodontics. | 11 | Mid Sagittal images of T1 and T2 weighted spin echo and black bone compared with LCR | 6 angular, 12 linear, 5 soft tissue landmarks, 20 or more angles, 12 planes | NM | NM | Taking into consideration the risk of radiation exposure, this imaging technique can be a novel alternative in the near future. |
| Juerchott et al., 2019 (b) [24] | Landmark identification Evaluated the in vivo reliability of established 3D landmarks using MRI using intra- and inter-rater reliability. | 16 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification using MRI and assessment of reliability | 44 cephalometric point landmarks | Two radiologists with 5 years’ experience in Dentomaxillofacial imaging | 2 (≥ 4 weeks) | The skeletal and dental landmarks can be determined with high intra- and inter-rater reliability. It has a great potential for treatment planning and monitoring in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery. |
| Grandoch et al., 2019 [25] | Comparison with CBCT Compared MRI (with dedicated head and neck signal amplification coil) and cone beam computed tomography | 12 | (MRI versus CBCT) 3D cephalometric landmark identification and comparison in three planes | Various anatomical structures and Anatomical points: 7 Anthropological points: 6 Radiologic point:1 Constructed points: 4 Soft tissue points: 5 | NM | 1 (within 24 h to 4 months) | Signal amplified 1,5 T MRI provides a suitable, clinically relevant alternative to CBCT in dentistry. For patients, it provides added value without radiation exposure. Further investigations of larger cohorts are needed. |
| Maspero et al., 2019 [26] | Comparison with CBCT Compared the accuracy and diagnostic capabilities of 3D cephalometric analysis on CBCT with those of 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (3T-MRI). | 18 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification and comparison in three planes | 14 cephalometric point landmarks, 11 angles, 13 planes | Two orthodontists experienced in 3D dental cephalometry | 2 (3 weeks) | 3D cephalometric analysis on 3T-MRI has potential to become a routine application for orthodontic treatment planning, especially in young patients, as MRI can be repeated and has apparently no biologic costs. Further studies with larger samples should be conducted to support our findings. |
| Juerchott et al., 2018 [27] | Landmark identification Evaluated validation of accuracy and reproducibility of 3D cephalometric analysis using magnetic resonance imaging | 3 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification using MRI and assessment of reliability | 27 cephalometric points, 19 angles, 26 planes | One radiologist with 5 years’ experience | NM | Demonstrated that accurate and reproducible 3D cephalometric analysis can be performed without exposure to ionizing radiation. |
| Heil et al., 2017 [28] | Comparison with LCR Evaluated whether MRI is equivalent to lateral cephalometric radiographs in cephalometric analysis. | 20 | LCR compared with MRI cephalograms (derived from MPR) | 18 cephalometric points, 14 angles, 10 planes | Two Radiology residents with 3 and 4 years of experience in dental imaging and image postprocessing, respectively) Two independent observers, an orthodontist with 8 years of experience in dental imaging | 2 (4 weeks) | There was a high concordance with equivalent measurements taken on LCR, which is the standard method in clinical routine. |
| Eley et al., 2013 [29] | Comparison with LCR Black bone MRI Presented a novel gradient echo MRI sequence (“Black Bone”) and highlight the potential of this sequence in cephalometric analysis. | 8(3 + 5) | LCR compared with cephalograms derived from MRI (Black bone and T1) | 9 cephalometric points, 6 angles, 7 planes | NM | 10 (NM) | “Black Bone” MRI has been demonstrated to offer a potential non-ionizing alternative to CT and CBCT for 3D cephalometry. |
| Tai et al., 2011 [30] | Comparison with CBCT Fusion of MRI and CBCT along with assessment of accuracy Explored the dimensional accuracy of MRI images after the image registration and fusion of CBCT and MRI using different softwares. | 3 | MPR images from CBCT with MPR images from MRI | 30 cephalometric points, 7 distances | NM | 2 (4 weeks) | To observe not only soft tissue but also hard tissue, MRI data could be a useful armamentarium. Study was able to validate the accuracy of registration between MRI and CBCT. The MPR images obtained from this registration showed excellent dimensional accuracy. |
| Study . | Main objectives . | Sample size (n) . | Compared modalities . | Compared parameters . | Observers and qualification . | Rounds of measurements (time between rounds) . | Main findings . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abkai et al., 2021 [21] | Comparison with LCR Ultra short echo time A novel scan protocol was introduced: 1. MRI cephalometric projections in one shot 2. Reduction of repetition and echo times towards an Ultra Short Echo-time (UTE) modality 3. High bone soft tissue contrast | 1 | 1 LCR and 7 MCPs were compared | 14 cephalometric point landmarks, 10 angles | 40 orthodontists with 15 years of experience in Cephalometric analysis | 1 (NM) | 1. Images were acquired much faster in comparison to other techniques. 2. The study demonstrated potentials of new method and showed first feasible results. 3. Further research is needed on it. |
| Juerchott et al. (a) [22] | Comparision with CBCT Evaluated 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. | 12 | - MPR images from CBCT compared with MPR images from MRI - Semi-automatic segmentation of skeletal and dental structures | 27 cephalometric point landmarks, 17 angles, 18 planes/distances | Two radiologists with 5 years’ experience in dentomaxillofacial imaging | 2 (≥ 4 weeks) | High levels of agreement found between MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analyses in vivo. These findings may have a high clinical impact due to the radiation exposure associated with the current reference modality CBCT. |
| Jency et al., 2019 [23] | Comparison with LCR Landmark identification Evaluated performance of black bone MRI as a cephalometric tool in orthodontics. | 11 | Mid Sagittal images of T1 and T2 weighted spin echo and black bone compared with LCR | 6 angular, 12 linear, 5 soft tissue landmarks, 20 or more angles, 12 planes | NM | NM | Taking into consideration the risk of radiation exposure, this imaging technique can be a novel alternative in the near future. |
| Juerchott et al., 2019 (b) [24] | Landmark identification Evaluated the in vivo reliability of established 3D landmarks using MRI using intra- and inter-rater reliability. | 16 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification using MRI and assessment of reliability | 44 cephalometric point landmarks | Two radiologists with 5 years’ experience in Dentomaxillofacial imaging | 2 (≥ 4 weeks) | The skeletal and dental landmarks can be determined with high intra- and inter-rater reliability. It has a great potential for treatment planning and monitoring in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery. |
| Grandoch et al., 2019 [25] | Comparison with CBCT Compared MRI (with dedicated head and neck signal amplification coil) and cone beam computed tomography | 12 | (MRI versus CBCT) 3D cephalometric landmark identification and comparison in three planes | Various anatomical structures and Anatomical points: 7 Anthropological points: 6 Radiologic point:1 Constructed points: 4 Soft tissue points: 5 | NM | 1 (within 24 h to 4 months) | Signal amplified 1,5 T MRI provides a suitable, clinically relevant alternative to CBCT in dentistry. For patients, it provides added value without radiation exposure. Further investigations of larger cohorts are needed. |
| Maspero et al., 2019 [26] | Comparison with CBCT Compared the accuracy and diagnostic capabilities of 3D cephalometric analysis on CBCT with those of 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (3T-MRI). | 18 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification and comparison in three planes | 14 cephalometric point landmarks, 11 angles, 13 planes | Two orthodontists experienced in 3D dental cephalometry | 2 (3 weeks) | 3D cephalometric analysis on 3T-MRI has potential to become a routine application for orthodontic treatment planning, especially in young patients, as MRI can be repeated and has apparently no biologic costs. Further studies with larger samples should be conducted to support our findings. |
| Juerchott et al., 2018 [27] | Landmark identification Evaluated validation of accuracy and reproducibility of 3D cephalometric analysis using magnetic resonance imaging | 3 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification using MRI and assessment of reliability | 27 cephalometric points, 19 angles, 26 planes | One radiologist with 5 years’ experience | NM | Demonstrated that accurate and reproducible 3D cephalometric analysis can be performed without exposure to ionizing radiation. |
| Heil et al., 2017 [28] | Comparison with LCR Evaluated whether MRI is equivalent to lateral cephalometric radiographs in cephalometric analysis. | 20 | LCR compared with MRI cephalograms (derived from MPR) | 18 cephalometric points, 14 angles, 10 planes | Two Radiology residents with 3 and 4 years of experience in dental imaging and image postprocessing, respectively) Two independent observers, an orthodontist with 8 years of experience in dental imaging | 2 (4 weeks) | There was a high concordance with equivalent measurements taken on LCR, which is the standard method in clinical routine. |
| Eley et al., 2013 [29] | Comparison with LCR Black bone MRI Presented a novel gradient echo MRI sequence (“Black Bone”) and highlight the potential of this sequence in cephalometric analysis. | 8(3 + 5) | LCR compared with cephalograms derived from MRI (Black bone and T1) | 9 cephalometric points, 6 angles, 7 planes | NM | 10 (NM) | “Black Bone” MRI has been demonstrated to offer a potential non-ionizing alternative to CT and CBCT for 3D cephalometry. |
| Tai et al., 2011 [30] | Comparison with CBCT Fusion of MRI and CBCT along with assessment of accuracy Explored the dimensional accuracy of MRI images after the image registration and fusion of CBCT and MRI using different softwares. | 3 | MPR images from CBCT with MPR images from MRI | 30 cephalometric points, 7 distances | NM | 2 (4 weeks) | To observe not only soft tissue but also hard tissue, MRI data could be a useful armamentarium. Study was able to validate the accuracy of registration between MRI and CBCT. The MPR images obtained from this registration showed excellent dimensional accuracy. |
n, number; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; CT, computed tomography; 3D, three dimensional; MPR, multi planar reconstruction; T, tesla.
| Study . | Main objectives . | Sample size (n) . | Compared modalities . | Compared parameters . | Observers and qualification . | Rounds of measurements (time between rounds) . | Main findings . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abkai et al., 2021 [21] | Comparison with LCR Ultra short echo time A novel scan protocol was introduced: 1. MRI cephalometric projections in one shot 2. Reduction of repetition and echo times towards an Ultra Short Echo-time (UTE) modality 3. High bone soft tissue contrast | 1 | 1 LCR and 7 MCPs were compared | 14 cephalometric point landmarks, 10 angles | 40 orthodontists with 15 years of experience in Cephalometric analysis | 1 (NM) | 1. Images were acquired much faster in comparison to other techniques. 2. The study demonstrated potentials of new method and showed first feasible results. 3. Further research is needed on it. |
| Juerchott et al. (a) [22] | Comparision with CBCT Evaluated 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. | 12 | - MPR images from CBCT compared with MPR images from MRI - Semi-automatic segmentation of skeletal and dental structures | 27 cephalometric point landmarks, 17 angles, 18 planes/distances | Two radiologists with 5 years’ experience in dentomaxillofacial imaging | 2 (≥ 4 weeks) | High levels of agreement found between MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analyses in vivo. These findings may have a high clinical impact due to the radiation exposure associated with the current reference modality CBCT. |
| Jency et al., 2019 [23] | Comparison with LCR Landmark identification Evaluated performance of black bone MRI as a cephalometric tool in orthodontics. | 11 | Mid Sagittal images of T1 and T2 weighted spin echo and black bone compared with LCR | 6 angular, 12 linear, 5 soft tissue landmarks, 20 or more angles, 12 planes | NM | NM | Taking into consideration the risk of radiation exposure, this imaging technique can be a novel alternative in the near future. |
| Juerchott et al., 2019 (b) [24] | Landmark identification Evaluated the in vivo reliability of established 3D landmarks using MRI using intra- and inter-rater reliability. | 16 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification using MRI and assessment of reliability | 44 cephalometric point landmarks | Two radiologists with 5 years’ experience in Dentomaxillofacial imaging | 2 (≥ 4 weeks) | The skeletal and dental landmarks can be determined with high intra- and inter-rater reliability. It has a great potential for treatment planning and monitoring in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery. |
| Grandoch et al., 2019 [25] | Comparison with CBCT Compared MRI (with dedicated head and neck signal amplification coil) and cone beam computed tomography | 12 | (MRI versus CBCT) 3D cephalometric landmark identification and comparison in three planes | Various anatomical structures and Anatomical points: 7 Anthropological points: 6 Radiologic point:1 Constructed points: 4 Soft tissue points: 5 | NM | 1 (within 24 h to 4 months) | Signal amplified 1,5 T MRI provides a suitable, clinically relevant alternative to CBCT in dentistry. For patients, it provides added value without radiation exposure. Further investigations of larger cohorts are needed. |
| Maspero et al., 2019 [26] | Comparison with CBCT Compared the accuracy and diagnostic capabilities of 3D cephalometric analysis on CBCT with those of 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (3T-MRI). | 18 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification and comparison in three planes | 14 cephalometric point landmarks, 11 angles, 13 planes | Two orthodontists experienced in 3D dental cephalometry | 2 (3 weeks) | 3D cephalometric analysis on 3T-MRI has potential to become a routine application for orthodontic treatment planning, especially in young patients, as MRI can be repeated and has apparently no biologic costs. Further studies with larger samples should be conducted to support our findings. |
| Juerchott et al., 2018 [27] | Landmark identification Evaluated validation of accuracy and reproducibility of 3D cephalometric analysis using magnetic resonance imaging | 3 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification using MRI and assessment of reliability | 27 cephalometric points, 19 angles, 26 planes | One radiologist with 5 years’ experience | NM | Demonstrated that accurate and reproducible 3D cephalometric analysis can be performed without exposure to ionizing radiation. |
| Heil et al., 2017 [28] | Comparison with LCR Evaluated whether MRI is equivalent to lateral cephalometric radiographs in cephalometric analysis. | 20 | LCR compared with MRI cephalograms (derived from MPR) | 18 cephalometric points, 14 angles, 10 planes | Two Radiology residents with 3 and 4 years of experience in dental imaging and image postprocessing, respectively) Two independent observers, an orthodontist with 8 years of experience in dental imaging | 2 (4 weeks) | There was a high concordance with equivalent measurements taken on LCR, which is the standard method in clinical routine. |
| Eley et al., 2013 [29] | Comparison with LCR Black bone MRI Presented a novel gradient echo MRI sequence (“Black Bone”) and highlight the potential of this sequence in cephalometric analysis. | 8(3 + 5) | LCR compared with cephalograms derived from MRI (Black bone and T1) | 9 cephalometric points, 6 angles, 7 planes | NM | 10 (NM) | “Black Bone” MRI has been demonstrated to offer a potential non-ionizing alternative to CT and CBCT for 3D cephalometry. |
| Tai et al., 2011 [30] | Comparison with CBCT Fusion of MRI and CBCT along with assessment of accuracy Explored the dimensional accuracy of MRI images after the image registration and fusion of CBCT and MRI using different softwares. | 3 | MPR images from CBCT with MPR images from MRI | 30 cephalometric points, 7 distances | NM | 2 (4 weeks) | To observe not only soft tissue but also hard tissue, MRI data could be a useful armamentarium. Study was able to validate the accuracy of registration between MRI and CBCT. The MPR images obtained from this registration showed excellent dimensional accuracy. |
| Study . | Main objectives . | Sample size (n) . | Compared modalities . | Compared parameters . | Observers and qualification . | Rounds of measurements (time between rounds) . | Main findings . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abkai et al., 2021 [21] | Comparison with LCR Ultra short echo time A novel scan protocol was introduced: 1. MRI cephalometric projections in one shot 2. Reduction of repetition and echo times towards an Ultra Short Echo-time (UTE) modality 3. High bone soft tissue contrast | 1 | 1 LCR and 7 MCPs were compared | 14 cephalometric point landmarks, 10 angles | 40 orthodontists with 15 years of experience in Cephalometric analysis | 1 (NM) | 1. Images were acquired much faster in comparison to other techniques. 2. The study demonstrated potentials of new method and showed first feasible results. 3. Further research is needed on it. |
| Juerchott et al. (a) [22] | Comparision with CBCT Evaluated 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. | 12 | - MPR images from CBCT compared with MPR images from MRI - Semi-automatic segmentation of skeletal and dental structures | 27 cephalometric point landmarks, 17 angles, 18 planes/distances | Two radiologists with 5 years’ experience in dentomaxillofacial imaging | 2 (≥ 4 weeks) | High levels of agreement found between MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analyses in vivo. These findings may have a high clinical impact due to the radiation exposure associated with the current reference modality CBCT. |
| Jency et al., 2019 [23] | Comparison with LCR Landmark identification Evaluated performance of black bone MRI as a cephalometric tool in orthodontics. | 11 | Mid Sagittal images of T1 and T2 weighted spin echo and black bone compared with LCR | 6 angular, 12 linear, 5 soft tissue landmarks, 20 or more angles, 12 planes | NM | NM | Taking into consideration the risk of radiation exposure, this imaging technique can be a novel alternative in the near future. |
| Juerchott et al., 2019 (b) [24] | Landmark identification Evaluated the in vivo reliability of established 3D landmarks using MRI using intra- and inter-rater reliability. | 16 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification using MRI and assessment of reliability | 44 cephalometric point landmarks | Two radiologists with 5 years’ experience in Dentomaxillofacial imaging | 2 (≥ 4 weeks) | The skeletal and dental landmarks can be determined with high intra- and inter-rater reliability. It has a great potential for treatment planning and monitoring in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery. |
| Grandoch et al., 2019 [25] | Comparison with CBCT Compared MRI (with dedicated head and neck signal amplification coil) and cone beam computed tomography | 12 | (MRI versus CBCT) 3D cephalometric landmark identification and comparison in three planes | Various anatomical structures and Anatomical points: 7 Anthropological points: 6 Radiologic point:1 Constructed points: 4 Soft tissue points: 5 | NM | 1 (within 24 h to 4 months) | Signal amplified 1,5 T MRI provides a suitable, clinically relevant alternative to CBCT in dentistry. For patients, it provides added value without radiation exposure. Further investigations of larger cohorts are needed. |
| Maspero et al., 2019 [26] | Comparison with CBCT Compared the accuracy and diagnostic capabilities of 3D cephalometric analysis on CBCT with those of 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (3T-MRI). | 18 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification and comparison in three planes | 14 cephalometric point landmarks, 11 angles, 13 planes | Two orthodontists experienced in 3D dental cephalometry | 2 (3 weeks) | 3D cephalometric analysis on 3T-MRI has potential to become a routine application for orthodontic treatment planning, especially in young patients, as MRI can be repeated and has apparently no biologic costs. Further studies with larger samples should be conducted to support our findings. |
| Juerchott et al., 2018 [27] | Landmark identification Evaluated validation of accuracy and reproducibility of 3D cephalometric analysis using magnetic resonance imaging | 3 | 3D cephalometric landmark identification using MRI and assessment of reliability | 27 cephalometric points, 19 angles, 26 planes | One radiologist with 5 years’ experience | NM | Demonstrated that accurate and reproducible 3D cephalometric analysis can be performed without exposure to ionizing radiation. |
| Heil et al., 2017 [28] | Comparison with LCR Evaluated whether MRI is equivalent to lateral cephalometric radiographs in cephalometric analysis. | 20 | LCR compared with MRI cephalograms (derived from MPR) | 18 cephalometric points, 14 angles, 10 planes | Two Radiology residents with 3 and 4 years of experience in dental imaging and image postprocessing, respectively) Two independent observers, an orthodontist with 8 years of experience in dental imaging | 2 (4 weeks) | There was a high concordance with equivalent measurements taken on LCR, which is the standard method in clinical routine. |
| Eley et al., 2013 [29] | Comparison with LCR Black bone MRI Presented a novel gradient echo MRI sequence (“Black Bone”) and highlight the potential of this sequence in cephalometric analysis. | 8(3 + 5) | LCR compared with cephalograms derived from MRI (Black bone and T1) | 9 cephalometric points, 6 angles, 7 planes | NM | 10 (NM) | “Black Bone” MRI has been demonstrated to offer a potential non-ionizing alternative to CT and CBCT for 3D cephalometry. |
| Tai et al., 2011 [30] | Comparison with CBCT Fusion of MRI and CBCT along with assessment of accuracy Explored the dimensional accuracy of MRI images after the image registration and fusion of CBCT and MRI using different softwares. | 3 | MPR images from CBCT with MPR images from MRI | 30 cephalometric points, 7 distances | NM | 2 (4 weeks) | To observe not only soft tissue but also hard tissue, MRI data could be a useful armamentarium. Study was able to validate the accuracy of registration between MRI and CBCT. The MPR images obtained from this registration showed excellent dimensional accuracy. |
n, number; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; CT, computed tomography; 3D, three dimensional; MPR, multi planar reconstruction; T, tesla.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
