Zum Inhalt

Magnetic resonance imaging in dental implant surgery: a systematic review

  • Open Access
  • 01.12.2024
  • Review
Erschienen in:

Abstract

Purpose

To comprehensively assess the existing literature regarding the rapidly evolving in vivo application of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for potential applications, benefits, and challenges in dental implant surgery.

Methods

Electronic and manual searches were conducted in PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, and Cochrane databases by two reviewers following the PICOS search strategy. This involved using medical subject headings (MeSH) terms, keywords, and their combinations.

Results

Sixteen studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 16, nine studies focused on preoperative planning and follow-up phases, four evaluated image-guided implant surgery, while three examined artifact reduction techniques. The current literature highlights several MRI protocols that have recently investigated and evaluated the in vivo feasibility and accuracy, focusing on its potential to provide surgically relevant quantitative and qualitative parameters in the assessment of osseointegration, peri-implant soft tissues, surrounding anatomical structures, reduction of artifacts caused by dental implants, and geometric accuracy relevant to implant placement. Black Bone and MSVAT-SPACE MRI, acquired within a short time, demonstrate improved hard and soft tissue resolution and offer high sensitivity in detecting pathological changes, making them a valuable alternative in targeted cases where CBCT is insufficient. Given the data heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not possible.

Conclusions

The results of this systematic review highlight the potential of dental MRI, within its indications and limitations, to provide perioperative surgically relevant parameters for accurate placement of dental implants.

Graphical Abstract

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background

In recent years, three-dimensional cross-sectional imaging and navigation have made dental implant placement a popular and well-established treatment modality in modern dentistry. Taking into account medical, economic, psychological and social aspects, dental implants stand out as the optimal long-term solution for the replacement of one or more teeth with high survival rates [1]. Nonetheless, many local and systemic factors, such as patient-specific, implant-related, surgical technique, and environmental factors, are relevant and key to the long-term success of dental implant surgery [2].
In the pursuit of a multidisciplinary, personalized, and minimally invasive treatment approach, the comprehensive initial preoperative evaluation of the implant site commonly includes both clinical and radiographic assessments. Typically, a two-dimensional X-ray-based panoramic radiograph (PAN) is performed initially and is sufficient for many cases. In high-risk cases where it is challenging to accurately visualize important surgical details such as the quality and quantity of osseous structures, nearby vulnerable anatomical structures, or other concomitant pathologies, three-dimensional imaging such as cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is recommended [3]. Widely recognized as the gold standard for oral and maxillofacial solid tissue imaging, CBCT has further consolidated its integral role in dental implantology by becoming the imaging technique of choice for virtual surgical planning and subsequent CAD/CAM template fabrication for guided implant surgery [4]. Although experienced surgeons can achieve comparable results with freehand implant placement techniques, the incorporation of advanced biomedical imaging into the clinical workflow in combination with surgical planning has led to better outcomes in terms of positional accuracy while simultaneously improving the protection of vulnerable adjacent anatomical structures [5]. However, the use of CBCT in dental implantology comes with certain drawbacks, including radiation exposure, higher costs, potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and susceptibility to image artifacts, mainly in the presence of dense materials such as metals [4]. The increasing use of 3D imaging with higher radiation doses [4] may be associated with an elevated lifetime risk of radiation-induced tumors, particularly among genetically predisposed adolescents [6, 7]. Even though the age of the population undergoing dental implant surgery is generally higher, this stochastic radiation effect should always be taken into account, considering the continuous striving towards reducing or even eliminating radiation exposure in biomedical imaging according to the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle and the upcoming suggested paradigm shift towards the As Low As Diagnostically Acceptable (ALADA) principle using CBCT [8].
Recently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a non-invasive, non-ionizing radiation imaging modality, has undergone significant advancements in a wide range of technical improvements coupled with the development of novel MRI sequences, positioning it as a leading imaging modality for the head and neck region, especially for the visualization of soft tissues [9]. Given the increasing application of MRI in the dental field, it also represents a valuable tool for indication-specific implementation in perioperative dental implant diagnostics and treatment planning [10]. The shift towards radiation-free imaging techniques could potentially lead to more robust imaging regarding artifact susceptibility when dealing with metal or ceramic dental implants [11]. However, this transition is associated with challenges, as the pursuit of diagnostic accuracy must not be compromised. Challenges of MRI in dental implantology include high cost, limited accessibility, motion-induced distortions, accurate differentiation of complex anatomy with various small-sized nerves and blood vessels, and image distortion due to magnetic field inhomogeneities caused by dental restorations [12]. However, dental MRI protocols developed in recent years have made it possible to overcome limitations in imaging bone structures, one of the most essential parameters in dental implant surgery, by using, e.g., black bone MRI sequences [13] or ultrashort echo time (UTE) sequences [14]. Furthermore, integrating innovations such as intraoral [15] or mandibular coils [16] combined with specialized dental MRI protocols has led to novel high-resolution, high-contrast imaging of dentomaxillofacial structures within short acquisition times. The MRI signals generated can be digitized and combined so that variably mineralized hard and soft tissues can be simultaneously depicted, illustrating the potential emerging for improving perioperative diagnostics in dental implant surgery [17].
This systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the existing literature regarding the rapidly evolving in vivo application of MRI in dental implant surgery, explicitly emphasizing newly developed dental MRI protocols and technical innovations. By systematically evaluating the available evidence, this review aims to highlight the potential benefits, indication-specific limitations, and current evidence-based case-specific guidelines of MRI in the context of dental implantology. Additionally, this review aims to investigate the novel MRI protocols and techniques that have been developed to enhance their performance in assessing osseointegration, peri-implant soft tissues, and surrounding anatomical structures relevant to implant placement by addressing the following research question: Does the use of dental MRI and newly introduced MR protocols and techniques, considering their potential advantages and limitations, provide a comprehensive set of perioperative quantitative and qualitative diagnostic information for dental implant surgery in healthy subjects and patients?

Materials and methods

Search strategy

Following the guidelines of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA), this systematic review aimed to identify relevant studies by systematically conducting a comprehensive search using the following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) question: P-population: human studies in healthy volunteers or patients over 14 years of age undergoing perioperative dental MRI for dental implant surgery (endosteal implants, mini dental implants, orthodontic implants); I-intervention: magnetic resonance imaging; C-control: conventional radiological examination (e.g., PAN, CBCT, or computed tomography (CT)), if available; O-outcome: ensure the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of perioperative radiographic evaluation in dental implant surgery, taking into account the acquisition of detailed images of dental and peri-implant structures with minimal artifacts (Table 1). This systematic review was not registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) platform (no protocol number available).
Table 1
This systematic review aimed to identify relevant studies on the in vivo use of dental MRI in dental implantology by systematically conducting a comprehensive search using the following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) question
Focused Question
(PICO)
Does the use of dental MRI and newly introduced MR protocols and techniques, considering their potential advantages and limitations, provide a comprehensive set of perioperative quantitative and qualitative diagnostic information for dental implant surgery in healthy subjects and patients?
Search strategy
 
Population
Human studies (patients and/or healthy subjects), aged older than 12 years undergoing MRI prior to MTM surgery
#1— “dental implants” OR “dental implant” OR “dental implantology” OR “titanium implant” OR “peri-implant” OR bone augmentation OR bone graft OR bone reconstruction OR sinus lift OR sinus lifting OR permanent dental restoration (inferior alveolar nerve [MeSH]) OR (lingual nerve [MeSH]) OR (mandibular nerve [MeSH]) OR (trigeminal nerve [MeSH]))
Intervention
Magnetic resonance imaging
#2— ( (magnetic resonance imaging [MeSH]) OR (MRI) OR (nuclear magnetic resonance imaging [MeSH]) OR (NMR) OR (diffusion tensor imaging [MeSH]) OR (DTI) OR (ultra-short echo-time [MeSH]) OR (UTE) OR (maxillofacial imaging))
#3— ( (visualization) OR (neurography))
Comparison
Conventional preoperative radiological assessment
#4— ( (computed tomography [MeSH]) OR (cone-beam computed tomography [MeSH])
#5— (panoramic radiography [MeSH])
Outcome
Feasibility and accuracy of perioperative radiological assessment in dental implant surgery
#6— ( (accuracy) OR (feasibility) OR (signal-to-noise-ratio [MeSH]))
Search combination (s)
(#1) AND ( (#2 or #3 or #4 or #5) OR (#6))

Information sources

A comprehensive data search of electronic databases for articles within the scope of this systematic review was conducted using Pubmed MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Cochrane Library without imposing language restrictions. The search strategy was designed to target relevant articles published from 1993 until June 2023. The search syntax was divided into population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design, using primary keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Terms and their combinations, while Boolean operators (AND, OR) were used to refine the search and identify relevant articles.

Study selection and eligibility criteria

The studies included in this review were chosen based on the following criteria: (1) human studies, specifically clinical trials, involving healthy participants or patients undergoing MRI in mandibular or maxillary dental implant surgery, as part of randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials and cohort studies; (2) volunteers aged 14 years and older; (3) availability of the full text. Exclusion criteria were: (1) animal studies, cadaver studies, in-vitro studies utilizing designs employing non-biologic materials, commonly referred to as "phantoms'", along with systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and case reports; (2) patients with additional pathology at the surgical site; (3) if they focused on regions outside the maxilla or mandible; (4) if precise details of the use and timing of MRI imaging were not reported or were unclear. All data sourced from various databases were imported into EndNote 20 (Clarivate, Sydney, Australia), and subsequently, duplicate records were removed. Initially, the titles and abstracts were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by a detailed full-text analysis. Two independent reviewers (A.A.H. and M.Z.) conducted the literature searches to minimize potential reviewer bias. Both reviewers thoroughly discussed and understood the specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. In addition, a training session was held between the reviewers to ensure the consistency in the interpretation and application of these criteria. If any discrepancies occurred during the screening process, they were resolved by discussion between the authors (A.A.H, M.Z., and S.V.).

Data extraction and collection

For every study incorporated in this review, the subsequent data were recorded by two reviewers independently (A.A.H and M.Z.): general data (author details, year of publication, country, study design and objectives, sample size, and mean age and age range of participants), MRI-specific parameters (MR device utilized, MRI sequence (s), field strength, type of MR coil, and acquisition time), and outcome measures (feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of perioperative radiographic evaluation, taking into account the acquisition of detailed images of dental and peri-implant structures with minimal artifacts).

Risk-of-bias assessment and quality assessment of studies

The assessment of the risk of bias in the methodology of the studies incorporated in this systematic review was assessed based on a modified short version of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), as outlined by Edwards et al. [18]. The evaluation compromised 18 criteria from the STROBE statement. Studies with a total score of 15 or more out of 18 were considered to have a low risk of bias, while those scoring between 11 and 14 were considered to have a medium risk of bias. Studies with a score of 10 or less were categorized as having a high risk of bias.
The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) [19] tool, which compromises four domains (patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing), was used to assess and ensure a transparent evaluation of bias, methodological soundness, diagnostic quality and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.

Results

Study selection

According to the aim of this comprehensive review, the systematic literature search initially identified 1431 studies of potential relevance. After removing all duplicates, 793 articles remained. In the first step of study selection, the titles and abstracts were screened, which resulted in the exclusion of 745 articles. This left 48 articles for a thorough full-text evaluation in the subsequent analysis step. Of these, 32 articles were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Finally, 16 articles dealing with the in vivo use of MRI in dental implant surgery fell within the scope of this systematic review and were evaluated (Fig. 1). The final selection of the studies included in this analysis was thoroughly reviewed and approved by the rest of the remaining authors.
Fig. 1
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram showing the article selection in this review
Bild vergrößern

Study characteristics

From an initial pool of 1431 articles of potential relevance, a total of 16 articles successfully met the inclusion criteria after a comprehensive analysis of their full texts. These articles, authored by Gray et al., 1998 [21]; Hassfeld et al., 2001 [22]; Imamura et al., 2004 [24]; Senel et al., 2006 [34]; Pompa et al., 2010 [23]; Burger et al., 2015 [55]; Probst et al., 2017 [52]; Laurino et al., 2020 [32]; Arabi et al., 2020 [54]; Probst et al., 2020 [13]; Hilgenfeld et al., 2020 [42]; Flügge et al., 2021 [33]; Schwindling et al., 2021 [44]; Grandoch et al., 2021 [31]; Schwindling et al., 2021 [56]; Al-Haj Husain et al., 2023 [16], were considered directly relevant to the scope of this review. In these 16 selected studies (comparative study 75%; other 25%), published between July 1998 and June 2023, a total of 269 patients underwent perioperative MRI. These scans were performed using MRI field strengths of 0.2, 1.5, or 3 Tesla and different MRI sequences. Patients ranged in age from 14 to 85 years, and scan acquisition times varied from approximately 3 min to 21 min.
Nine of the included studies addressed bone-specific features relevant to osseointegration in the preoperative planning and follow-up phases, such as bone level assessment in general or in specific anatomical conditions, e.g., maxillary and mandibular alveolar atrophy at the implant site, perioperative assessment in sinus lift surgery or onlay bone grafting, or assessment of buccal bone thickness in planning of immediate implant placement in the anterior region. Four studies evaluated fully or partially image-guided implant surgery, three assessed artifact reduction, one evaluated artifact reduction caused by dental implants in specific dental MR protocols, and two evaluated artifact reduction in hybrid PET/MRI imaging, including deep learning-based approaches. The characteristics of the studies included in this systematic review are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Characteristics of included studies in this systematic review
Study number
Author, Year, Country
Study
Sample size
Mean age; (range)
Study objectives
MRISequences
Number and type of implants
Field strengths
Type of MRI coil
Acquisition time
MR device
Outcome parameters (feasibility/accuracy)
1
Gray et al., 1998, Scotland, United Kingdom
Low-field magnetic resonance imaging for implant dentistry
11 Patients
N/A
Evaluation of the available bone level for dental implant placement
T1-weightedfast spin echo (SE) technique
19 implants (13 maxillary and six mandibular);titanium
0.2 T
Radiofrequency head coil
5:16 min:s
Open Viva, Siemens AG, Erlangen, Germany
Accurate preoperative visualization of the implant site, distinguishing between cortical and cancellous bone and associated anatomical structures, with minimal artifacts
2
Hassfeld et al., 2001, Germany
Magnetic resonance tomography for planning dental implantation
15 patients
40 years; (14–85 years)
Assessment of MRI for pre-implant imaging inpatients with severe alveolar atrophy
T1-weighted, fat-suppressed sequences and conventional T1-weighted sequences
N/A
1.5 T
N/A
14:09 min:s
Edge High-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging System, Picker, Cleveland, USA
Detailed depiction of anatomically relevant structures, such as the mandibular canal and maxillary sinus. Artifacts caused by metallic materials reduced the image quality
3
Imamura et al., 2004, Japan
A Comparative Study of ComputedTomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Mandibular Canals and Cross-Sectional Areas in Diagnosis prior to Dental Implant Treatment
11 Patients
59 years; (35–75 years)
Evaluation and comparison of the detectability of the anatomical morphology of mandibular molar implant sites using CT and MRI prior to dental implant treatment
T1-weightedMRI
19 implants;N/A
1.5 T
N/A
N/A
MAGNEX 150™, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan
MRI identified the canal in all cases, while CT failed to do so in half of the cases, with high inter- and intra-reader reliability
4
Senel et al., 2006, Turkey
Assessment of the sinus lift operation by magnetic resonance imaging
8 patients
N/A;(38–55 years)
Evaluation of theedentulous maxillary regions one week before and three months after sinus lift surgery
T2-weighted fast spin echo (FSE),T1-weighted spin echo (SE)
13 implants;N/A
1.5 T
N/A
10 min
N/A
High-resolution visualization of the surgical site for preoperative planning and postoperative vertical bone height augmentation
5
Pompa et al., 2010, Italy
A comparative study of Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) in the pre-implant evaluation
30 patients
N/A
Evaluation and comparison of the bone level for pre-implant evaluationby CT and MRI
Fast-gradient-echo sequence; Proton density (PD)-weighted, T2-weighted and Tl-weighted spin-echo sequences
N/A; Prior Implants (amalgam,ferrous)
1.5 T
Head and neck coil
9 min
N/A
Accurate visualization and reliable bone measurements in the surgical site for preoperative dental implants, with no significant differences found between both imaging modalities
6
Burger et al., 2015, Switzerland
Hybrid PET/MR Imaging: An Algorithm to Reduce Metal Artifacts from Dental Implants in Dixon-Based Attenuation Map Generation Using a Multiacquisition Variable-Resonance Image Combination Sequence
8 patients
N/A
Development of an algorithm that adapts Dixon MR-based imaging to minimize metal artifacts from dental implants in hybrid PET/MR imaging
3-Dimensional dual gradient-echo sequence (Dixon) used for MR imaging–based PET attenuation correction and a high-resolution multiacquisition with variable resonance image combination (MAVRIC) sequence
N/A; titanium
3 T
N/A
6:38 min:s
Discovery MR750, imaging scanner, General Electric Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
The proposed algorithm was robust in all patients and allowed a significant 70% reduction in artifact size, allowing MR image-based attenuation correction in critical areas
7
Probst et al., 2017, Germany
Magnetic resonance imaging of the inferior alveolar nerve with special regard to metal artifact reduction
7 patients
N/A
To identify the potential and limitations of postoperative MRI of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) in dental implant surgery, especially regarding metal artefacts
Three-dimensional (3D) turbo spin echo (TSE) and gradient echo (GRE) sequences, T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) with fat suppression, and Constructive Interference in Steady State (CISS) with a high T2 contrast, WARP sequences
N/A;metallic materials
1.5 or 3 T
12-channel head coil with an additional surface coil
20:58 min:s
MAGNETOM Verio, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, GermanyMAGNETOM Avanto, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany
Subjects with postoperative neurosensory IAN impairment showed a significant reduction in metallic artifacts. The use of view angle technique (VAT) and slice-encoding metal artifact correction (SEMAC) techniques further improved image quality, but was associated with a blurring effect
8
Laurino et al., 2020, Brazil
Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and cone-beam computed tomography for maxillary sinus graft assessment
15patients
59 years; (N/A)
Quantitative and qualitative assessment of postoperative bone dimensions after unilateral sinus lift surgery using CBCT and MRI
T1-weighted spin-echo sequence, T2-weighted spin- echo sequence
N/A
1.5 T
Head coil
N/A
MAGNETOM Aera; Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany
The presence of bone tissue in the grafted area was observed, with significant correlations between MRI and CBCT for sinus graft height, buccolingual width, and anteroposterior depth
9
Arabi et al., 2020, Switzerland
Truncation compensation and metallic dental implant artefact reduction in PET/MRI attenuation correction using deep learning-based object completion
25
patients
65 years;
(50–77
years)
Application of a deep learning-based assessment to predict the missing information in MR images compromised by metallic artifacts due to dental implants, with the aim of reducing quantification errors in PET/MRI
Dixon 3D volumetric interpolated T1-weighted sequence
N/A;
metallic materials
3 T
N/A
N/A
Ingenuity TF PET/MRI system, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
The results show promising performance of the proposed approach and reduction of artifacts in completing MR images compromised by metal artifacts and/or body truncation in PET/MR imaging
10
Probst et al., 2020, Germany
Magnetic resonance imaging based computer-guided dental implant surgery—A clinical pilot study
12
patients
49 years; (N/A)
Evaluation of the feasibility of computer-assisted template-guided 3D dental implant planning is feasible using MRI
3D T1-weighted bone sequence, 3D T2-weighted short tau inversion recovery (STIR)
12 implants;
N/A
3 T
16-channel Head and Neck Spine array
9:11 min:s
MR Ingenia Elition, Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands
MRI-based guided dental implant surgery was feasible in 75% of the cases, with the resulting deviations between the virtually planned and the actual implant position being clinically acceptable
11
Hilgenfeld et al., 2020, Germany
Use of dental MRI for radiation-free guided dental implant planning: a prospective, in vivo study of accuracy and reliability
30
patients
57 years;
(N/A)
MRI datasets were used for implant planning and surgical guide fabrication in patients undergoing dental implant surgery. In addition, CBCT datasets were used to co-register and evaluate angular discrepancies between the planned and surgically guided positions of the implants
Multi-slab acquisition with view-angle tilting gradient was used, based on a sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip-angle evolution (MSVAT-SPACE) prototype sequence
45 implants;
N/A
3 T
15-channel dental coil
7:45 min:s
MAGNETOM Tim Trio, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany
Inter-rater and inter-modality agreement was excellent for MRI-based treatment planning. CBCT-based adjustments to MRI plans were required for implant position at 30% and implant axis at 7%, with almost all guides being suitable for clinical use
12
Flügge et al., 2021, Germany
MRI for the display of autologous onlay bone grafts during early healing—an experimental study
10
patients
52.5 years;
(26–64 years)
Assessment of graft volume of autologous onlay bone grafts during early healing in patients with alveolar bone atrophy
2D Turbospinecho (TSE) sequences with view angle tilting (VAT) technique
N/A
3 T
Body transmit coil, a 4 cm receive loop coil (LC), and an intraoral inductively coupled coil (ICC)
2:38–5:03
min:s
MAGNETOM Prisma, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany
MRI is capable of accurately imaging autologous onlay bone grafts longitudinally, but in some cases image artifacts have caused volumetric measurement deviations
13
Schwindling et al., 2021, Germany
Three-dimensional accuracy of partially guided implant surgery based on dental magnetic resonance imaging
34
patients
57 years;
(29–75 years)
Quantifying the three-dimensional accuracy of partially guided implant surgery using backward planning, based on dental magnetic resonance imaging
Multi-slab acquisition with view-angle tilting gradient was used, based on a sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip-angle evolution (MSVAT-SPACE) prototype sequence
41 implants;
N/A
3 T
15-channel dental coil
10 min
MAGNETOM Tim Trio, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany
The 3D accuracy of MRI-guided partially guided implant surgery was lower for entry point, apex and axis than for CBCT-guided. Nevertheless, the values are promising for radiation-free backward planning
14
Grandoch et al., 2021, Germany
1.5 T MRI with a
Dedicated Dental
Signal-Amplification
Coil as Noninvasive,
Radiation-Free
Alternative to CBCT
in Presurgical Implant
Planning Procedures
16
patients
N/A; (19–78 years)
Evaluation of dental MRI as a radiation-free alternative for dental implant planning using
a dedicated dental signal amplification coil and to compare it with CBCT
3D high-resolution T1-weighted turbo- spin echo sequence (3D HR T1w TSE), 3D high resolution T1- weighted fast field echo sequence (3D HR T1w FFE)
22 implants;
N/A
1.5 T
Orbital 4-channel coil
8:52 min:s
Philips Achieva, Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands
Dental Implant planning was technically feasible by all MRI protocols, whereby 3D HR T1w TSE was superior and showed no significant differences compared to CBCT
15
Schwindling et al., 2021, Gerrmany
Geometric
Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional
Oral Implant Planning
Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam
Computed Tomography
27 patients
N/A
Evaluation of geometric reproducibility of 3D implant planning based on MRI and CBCT using a backward planning approach and assessment of inter- and intra-rater reliability
Multi-slab acquisition with view-angle tilting gradient was used, based on a sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip-angle evolution (MSVAT-SPACE) prototype sequence
41 implants;
N/A
3 T
15-channel dental coil
10 min
MAGNETOM Tim Trio, Siemens Healthineers; Erlangen, Germany
CBCT-based implant planning was more reproducible than MRI and inter- and intra-rater reliability was higher with CBCT than with MRI
16
Al-Haj Husain et al., 2023, Switzer-land
Buccal bone thickness assessment for immediate anterior dental implant planning: A pilot study comparing cone-beam computed tomography and 3D double-echo steady-state MRI
10 patients
32 years;
(19–59 years)
CBCT vs. MRI evaluation of buccal bone thickness for anterior implant planning
3-dimensional double-echo steady-state (DESS) MRI
N/A
3 T
64 channel head-and-neck coil
12:24 min:s
Skyra (release VE11c), Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany
Image quality showed little to no artifacts and allowed confident diagnostic interpretation, with no significant differences in buccal bone thickness assessment between both imaging modalities

Risk-of-bias assessment and quality assessment of studies

The risk of bias was assessed as low in 14, medium in one study, and high in one study. An overview of the percentage responses for each topic is displayed in Table 3. The assessment of diagnostic quality and applicability according to the QUADAS-2 rules is visualized in Fig. 2.
Table 3
Quality assessment of the risk of bias in the methodology of the studies incorporated in this systematic review was assessed based on a modified short version of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) (+ = yes, − = no)
Checklist
Gray et al., 1998 (21)
Hassfeld et al., 2001 (22)
Imamura et al., 2004 [24]
Senel et al., 2006, [34]
Pompa et al., 2010 [23]
Burger et al., 2015 [55]
Probst et al., 2017 [52]
Laurino et al., 2020 [32]
Arabi et al., 2020 [54]
Probst et al., 2020 [13]
Hilgenfeld et al., 2020 [42]
Flügge et al., 2021 [33]
Schwindling et al., 2021, [56]
Grandoch et al., 2021 [31]
Schwindling et al., 2021, [44]
Al-Haj Husain et al., 2023 [17]
Objectives:
clearly formatted
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
Study design: described in detail
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
Settings: described in terms of location; and relevant dates
−; −
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
Participants: eligibility criteria; and methods of selection described
−; −
−; −
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
Bias: any efforts to address potential sources of bias described
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
Sample size: explanation of derivation; adequate
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; −
 + ; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
−; + 
Statistical Methods: described; appropriate for data
−; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
−; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
Participants: described
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
Outcome data: number of outcome events reported
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
Other analysis: any other analyses conducted reported
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
Limitations: limitations of the study; and any potential bias discussed
−; + 
 + ; + 
−; + 
−; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
 + ; + 
Interpretation: overall interpretation of results provided
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
External validity: generalizability of the results discussed
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 + 
Total out of 18 (percentage)
9 (50%)
15 (83%)
15 (83%)
14 (78%)
15 (83%)
15 (83%)
17 (94%)
17 (94%)
16 (89%)
16 (89%)
17 (94%)
16 (89%)
16 (89%)
17 (94%)
17 (94%)
16 (89%)
Fig. 2
Study risk of bias and applicability concerns assessment using the Quadas-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) tool
Bild vergrößern

Discussion

Numerous articles in the literature have investigated and evaluated the feasibility and accuracy of MRI in dental implantology, focusing on its potential to provide surgically relevant quantitative and qualitative parameters. Subsequently, the analysis in this review has focused on the impact of MR protocols and device-specific technical features in perioperative imaging, aiming to assess their indications and limitations and provide recommendations for the most appropriate decision-making. The results of this review highlight the significant contribution of dental MRI to the comprehensive assessment of surgically relevant clinical parameters of the implant site, including details of the osseous tissue structure, bone dimensions (height and width), proximity to the mandibular canal, respectively nerves and foramina, and delineation of the osseous boundaries of the maxillary sinus. This is particularly important in cases where conventional imaging techniques such as CBCT may be inadequate due to limitations in visualizing soft tissue structures.
For more than three decades, MRI has been used to image the pathoanatomy of the dentomaxillofacial region, allowing simultaneous radiation-free visualization of soft and hard tissues [20]. Several previously conducted clinical studies have demonstrated that MRI has the potential to be used for dental implant planning, even though the aspect of template-guided implant positioning was not initially considered [12, 2123]. Nonetheless, the long scan times of up to 30 min and suboptimal image quality with insufficient resolution at slice thicknesses of up to 4 mm have, until recently, proved unsuitable for daily clinical routine. However, the data obtained support that MRI using conventional MRI sequences (T1-weighted gradient‐echo (GE) and fast spin echo (SE) sequences) has been shown to provide similar, non-inferior information to CBCT or CT in the preoperative planning of dental implants [23, 24]. It should be noted that the conventional MRI protocols used in these studies allowed the acquisition of signals from nonmineralized soft tissues but could not directly visualize mineralized crystalline tissues such as teeth or bone, presenting them as dark voids or regions devoid of signal. In clinical practice, X-ray-based three-dimensional sectional imaging modalities, particularly CBCT, have established themselves as the gold standard for patient-specific preoperative virtual surgical planning, and the subsequent fabrication of CAD/CAM-generated drilling templates for guided implant surgery [4, 25]. The use of planning software enables the virtual positioning of implants, taking into account prosthetic and anatomical considerations and the available bone level so that the virtually planned implant position can be transferred to the surgical site with appropriate clinical accuracy [25]. However, with the increasing use of CBCT in medical imaging, potential concerns have been raised due to cumulative radiation exposure, resulting in an increased susceptibility to thyroid cancer and meningiomas [26, 27]. Ongoing research is still being conducted to understand further the exact relationship between radiation exposure and the implementation of X-ray-based scans in routine clinical dental procedures.
Recent developments advancing the field of dental imaging towards innovative MRI protocols optimized specifically for dental applications, along with the integration of dedicated novel coils, have enabled the acquisition of high isotropic 3D resolution, with significant improvement in resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, as well as significant reduction in acquisition times and effective suppression of artifacts [15, 28, 29]. As a result, MRI is emerging as a promising and reliable alternative to CBCT for dental implant surgery, both for accurate diagnosis and perioperative treatment planning, when indicated. Previous studies have shown that CT, CBCT, and MRI have excellent intermodal agreement for dimensional and positional measurements, including parameters such as bone height and width and bone dimensional volume [23, 2931].
Especially in the perioperative assessment of sinus lift surgery [32] or onlay bone grafting [33], excellent results seem to be obtained with a significant correlation between MRI and CBCT. Sinus floor elevation procedures showed the best intermodality agreement for sinus graft height, buccolingual width, and anteroposterior depth [32, 34], whereas onlay bone grafts allowed accurate longitudinal visualization, with image artifacts in some cases causing volumetric measurement deviations [33]. Thus, it can be concluded that MRI allows accurate assessment of the outcome of sinus floor elevation with high image quality and little or no artifacts. Mineralized dental tissue is challenging to depict using conventional MRI sequences due to its low proton density and biological composition, which limit the molecular motion of hydrogen nuclei within water molecules, coupled with rapid signal decay after radiofrequency excitation [35, 36]. For effective visualization of teeth and critical bony structures, such as the osseous boundaries of the maxillary sinus and mandibular canal, along with the inferior alveolar nerve, specialized sequences are required. These sequences should be capable of acquiring rapidly decaying signals, a feat achieved by implementing ultra-short echo time (UTE) and zero echo time (ZTE) techniques. These techniques offer the advantage of generating CT-like contrast while simultaneously enabling the visualizing soft tissue signals [37, 38]. Thereby, ultrashort hard pulse excitations and three-dimensional center-out radial sampling are utilized, resulting in high-quality imaging. Due to its ultra-short echo time, the UTE protocol is also particularly well suited for reducing metal or field inhomogeneity artifacts, highlighting its enormous potential in dental implant imaging [14]. Regarding the visualization of neural tissues, especially the continuous depiction of the trigeminal nerve and its peripheral branches, such as the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve, the combination of black bone MRI sequences, such as 3D-double echo steady state (DESS) sequences with novel mandibular coils provides excellent perioperative imaging of the surgical site [9], [39]. For high-risk procedures near vulnerable soft tissue anatomy, such as vessels, nerves, gingiva, and adjacent periodontal ligaments, DESS MRI could enhance the procedure's safety and improve patient outcomes. However, both CBCT and MRI can have limitations in terms of accurate visualization of the occlusal surfaces, which is required for precise tooth-guided implant positioning. Both in vitro and in vivo studies are currently demonstrating the feasibility and accuracy of the MRI-based approach regarding the accuracy of partially and fully guided dental implant surgery for the restoration of single-tooth gaps and for partially edentulous and edentulous mandibles [40, 41]. Probst et al. conducted a study to demonstrate the feasibility of 3D T1-weighted bone sequence and 3D T2-weighted short tau inversion recovery (STIR) MRI for computer-assisted template-guided 3D dental implant planning, which was achieved in three-quarters of cases, with the resulting deviation between the virtual planned and the actual implant position being clinically acceptable [13]. Another study supported the feasibility by effectively visualizing all anatomical structures relevant to implant placement comparing various MRI protocols, with 3D HR T1w TSE being superior and showed no significant differences compared to CBCT [31]. Hilgenfeld and colleagues conducted a study in 2020 to demonstrate the usefulness of a multi-slab acquisition with view-angle tilting gradient was used, based on a sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip-angle evolution (MSVAT-SPACE) prototype sequence for implant planning and surgical guide fabrication. The MRI datasets were co-registered with the CBCT datasets to evaluate angular discrepancies between planned and surgically guided implant positions. For implant planning, inter-rater and inter-modality agreement for MRI-based treatment planning was excellent, but CBCT-based adjustments to MRI plans were required for implant position in 30% and implant axis in 7%, with almost all guides being suitable for clinical use [42]. Thereby, the mean three-dimensional deviations between MRI- and CBCT-based implant position were 1.1 mm at the entry point and 1.3 mm at the apex, with a mean angular deviation of 2.4°. Furthermore, another study integrating intraoral surface scanning and 3D printing into guided implant surgery has demonstrated the need for an imaging modality that can effectively and accurately visualize mucosal details [43]. However, another evaluation of MSVAT-SPACE-MRI compared to CBCT in assessing the geometric reproducibility of 3D implant planning using a backward planning approach showed higher reproducibility and inter- and intra-rater reliability for CBCT [44]. Obviously, MRI of the oral cavity is challenged by artifacts that may compromise the accuracy and quality of the acquired images due to the presence of dental restorations, depending on their composition and physical properties, field inhomogeneity, breathing, or tongue and deglutition movements [12]. Addressing and minimizing these artifacts is critical to the reliability and interpretability of dental MRI scans in the comprehensive assessment of dental implant therapy. Efforts are therefore being made to optimize MRI protocols, patient preparation, and technical software and hardware. However, in clinical practice, the presence of artifacts in all imaging modalities, including CT and CBCT, needs to be considered as dental restorations causing image artifacts are more prevalent in patients undergoing dental implant surgery due to their tendency to be older, which may affect the accuracy of transferring the surgical plan to the surgical site [45]. In CBCT imaging, metallic artifacts appear as black-and-white streaks, predominantly arising due to X-ray diffraction and photon starvation [46]. In the context of dental implant surgery, the challenge of metallic artifacts extends beyond implant materials themselves. Even the drilling procedures performed during surgery that result in metal debris can cause severe degradation of image quality, as they can become embedded in surrounding tissues [47]. Although artifacts in MRI may originate from similar sources, their underlying physical mechanisms, mainly due to magnetic field distortions, and their visual manifestation vastly differs from X-ray based imaging modalities. While the streak artifacts induced by CBCT are usually less severe in MRI, the presence of these artifacts can still compromise the diagnostic utility of images the images [48]. However, in contrast to titanium implants, zirconia implants showed minimal artifacts and were visualized together with the surrounding tissue with an accurate signal-to-noise ratio [30, 49]. Initial efforts have included the implementation of specific dental MRI protocols, including view angle tilting (VAT) and slice-encoding metal artifact correction (SEMAC) techniques, already successfully established in orthopedics [50] and neurosurgery [51], which have resulted in a reduction in metal artifacts and further improved image quality, but have been associated with a blurring effect [52, 53]. Similarly, in oncological imaging such as PET/MRI in the head and neck region, several studies have aimed to reduce metal artifacts from dental implants by applying deep learning-based assessment to predict the missing information [54]. The results showed promising performance of the proposed approach and reduction of artifacts in the completion of MR images affected by metal artifacts and/or body truncation in PET/MR imaging. Burger et al. developed another algorithm to reduce metal artifacts from dental implants in Dixon-based attenuation map generation using a multi-acquisition variable-resonance image combination sequence, showing robust results in all patients with a 70% reduction in artifact size, allowing MR image-based attenuation correction in critical areas, leading to improved diagnostics [55]. In addition, the use of lower magnetic field strengths in combination with dedicated intraoral or mandibular coils is a promising diagnostic approach that allows fixation of the patient's head and jaw, faster imaging and thus shorter examination times (up to three minutes), which plays a key role in reducing artifacts and making MRI a viable option for clinical applications [16]. However, further research and technological advancements, particularly in light of the ongoing shift toward the use of ultra-low field MRI are still needed to establish standardized approaches aiming at minimizing implant-related artifacts and enhancing the diagnostic potential of dental MRI.
While radiation-free dental MRI offers several advantages and new possibilities in implant dentistry, the results of this systematic review highlight the potential of several MRI protocols for planning, placement, and follow-up of dental implant rehabilitation, with comparable results to CBCT-based surgical planning. The ongoing transition to radiation-free dentomaxillofacial imaging should always consider well-defined case-specific indications and limitations. This approach aims to achieve the best possible patient outcome in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary coordinated, personalized and minimally invasive therapeutic approach. Given the existing heterogeneity in the literature regarding scan parameters and coils used, additional studies, including randomized control trials, are needed to evaluate comparisons between MRI and conventional radiography. Some studies in this systematic review focused on feasibility assessments using MRI alone, highlighting the need for further research. At the same time, adherence to radiation safety guidelines is essential to contribute to an evidence-based understanding of the effectiveness and impact of MR protocols on clinical outcomes. For future meta-analyses, standardization of study designs, outcomes, and methods across studies is essential to ensure a more homogeneous and comparable database. From today's perspective, dental MRI can be used on an indication- and patient-specific basis to replace or complement established X-ray-based imaging modalities such as CBCT or CT. The additional insights derived from soft-tissue information may have a positive impact on surgical planning. This, in turn, might allow better prediction of postoperative outcomes, leading to potentially safer surgical approach and minimizing postoperative discomfort or complications. However, with increased accessibility, improved cost-effectiveness and considering the improved benefit-risk ratio, the use of UTE or ZTE protocols with clinically acceptable acquisition times represents a promising alternative that can be used for oral rehabilitation planning, enabling advanced treatment options such as guided implantation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this systematic review investigates the existing literature on the feasibility and accuracy of MRI in dental implantology. The analysis focuses on the impact of MR protocols and technical features and provides insight into their indications and limitations for perioperative imaging. The results emphasize the significant contribution of dental MRI in the assessment of critical clinical parameters, including osseous tissue structure, bone dimensions, and proximity to vital structures. While conventional X-ray-based imaging techniques remain the gold standard, Black Bone MRI and MSVAT-SPACE MRI protocols, which offer improved hard and soft tissue resolution and higher sensitivity in detecting pathologic changes compared to conventional X-ray-based modalities, may establish themselves as a valuable alternative in targeted cases where CBCT is insufficient. The results of this review indicate that further studies, including randomized control trials, are needed to evaluate the efficacy and impact of MRI protocols on clinical outcomes. Therefore, standardization of study designs is essential for future meta-analyses to ensure a homogeneous and comparable database. While the benefits of MRI in implant dentistry are currently being demonstrated, further research is needed to evaluate its long-term efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and broader applicability. However, implementing dental MRI into the perioperative workflow has the potential to redefine treatment strategies, increase precision, and improve patient outcomes while minimizing radiation exposure.

Declarations

Not applicable.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they do not have any competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Download
Titel
Magnetic resonance imaging in dental implant surgery: a systematic review
Verfasst von
Adib Al-Haj Husain
Marina Zollinger
Bernd Stadlinger
Mutlu Özcan
Sebastian Winklhofer
Nadin Al-Haj Husain
Daphne Schönegg
Marco Piccirelli
Silvio Valdec
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2024
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
International Journal of Implant Dentistry / Ausgabe 1/2024
Elektronische ISSN: 2198-4034
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-024-00532-3
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Howe MS, Keys W, Richards D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: a systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J Dent. 2019;84:9–21.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Quran FA, Al-Ghalayini RF, Al-Zu’bi BN. Single-tooth replacement: factors affecting different prosthetic treatment modalities. BMC Oral Health. 2011;11:34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Pertl L, Gashi-Cenkoglu B, Reichmann J, Jakse N, Pertl C. Preoperative assessment of the mandibular canal in implant surgery: comparison of rotational panoramic radiography (OPG), computed tomography (CT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for preoperative assessment in implant surgery. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2013;6(1):73–80.PubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen S, Ou Q, Lin X, Wang Y. Comparison between a computer-aided surgical template and the free-hand method: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implant Dent. 2019;28(6):578–89.PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsapaki V. Radiation protection in dental radiology—recent advances and future directions. Phys Med. 2017;44:222–6.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, Prevedello LM, Nawfel RD, Hanson R, et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology. 2009;251(1):175–84.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015;45(4):263–5.MathSciNetPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Haj Husain A, Solomons M, Stadlinger B, Pejicic R, Winklhofer S, Piccirelli M, et al. Visualization of the inferior alveolar nerve and lingual nerve using MRI in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(9).
10.
Zurück zum Zitat de Carvalho e Silva Fuglsig JM, Wenzel A, Hansen B, Lund TE, Spin-Neto R. Magnetic resonance imaging for the planning, execution, and follow-up of implant-based oral rehabilitation: systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(3):432–41.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat DemirturkKocasarac H, Geha H, Gaalaas LR, Nixdorf DR. MRI for dental applications. Dent Clin N Am. 2018;62(3):467–80.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Gray CF, Redpath TW, Smith FW, Staff RT. Advanced imaging: magnetic resonance imaging in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(1):18–27.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Probst FA, Schweiger J, Stumbaum MJ, Karampinos D, Burian E, Probst M. Magnetic resonance imaging based computer-guided dental implant surgery—a clinical pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(5):612–21.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Du J, Bydder GM. Qualitative and quantitative ultrashort-TE MRI of cortical bone. NMR Biomed. 2013;26(5):489–506.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ludwig U, Eisenbeiss AK, Scheifele C, Nelson K, Bock M, Hennig J, et al. Dental MRI using wireless intraoral coils. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23301.ADSPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Haj Husain A, Schmidt V, Valdec S, Stadlinger B, Winklhofer S, Schönegg D, et al. MR-orthopantomography in operative dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery: a proof of concept study. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):6228.ADSPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Haj Husain A, Stadlinger B, Özcan M, Schönegg D, Winklhofer S, Al-Haj Husain N, et al. Buccal bone thickness assessment for immediate anterior dental implant planning: a pilot study comparing cone-beam computed tomography and 3D double-echo steady-state MRI. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25(1):35–45.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Edwards R, Altalibi M, Flores-Mir C. The frequency and nature of incidental findings in cone-beam computed tomographic scans of the head and neck region: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(2):161–70.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Gahleitner A, Solar P, Nasel C, Homolka P, Youssefzadeh S, Ertl L, et al. Magnetic resonance tomography in dental radiology (dental MRI). Radiologe. 1999;39(12):1044–50.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Gray CF, Redpath TW, Smith FW. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging for implant dentistry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1998;27(4):225–9.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Hassfeld S, Fiebach J, Widmann S, Heiland S, Mühling J. Magnetic resonance tomography for planning dental implantation. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2001;5(3):186–92.PubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Pompa V, Galasso S, Cassetta M, Pompa G, De Angelis F, Di Carlo S. A comparative study of Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) in the pre-implant evaluation. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2010;1(3–4):33–8.PubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Imamura H, Sato H, Matsuura T, Ishikawa M, Zeze R. A comparative study of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of mandibular canals and cross-sectional areas in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatment. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6(2):75–81.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):416–35.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Nakamura T. Dental MRI: a road beyond CBCT. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(12):6389–91.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Memon A, Rogers I, Paudyal P, Sundin J. Dental X-rays and the risk of thyroid cancer and meningioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current epidemiological evidence. Thyroid. 2019;29(11):1572–93.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Assaf AT, Zrnc TA, Remus CC, Schonfeld M, Habermann CR, Riecke B, et al. Evaluation of four different optimized magnetic-resonance-imaging sequences for visualization of dental and maxillo-mandibular structures at 3 T. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(7):1356–63.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Flügge T, Hövener JB, Ludwig U, Eisenbeiss AK, Spittau B, Hennig J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of intraoral hard and soft tissues using an intraoral coil and FLASH sequences. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(12):4616–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Duttenhoefer F, Mertens ME, Vizkelety J, Gremse F, Stadelmann VA, Sauerbier S. Magnetic resonance imaging in zirconia-based dental implantology. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(10):1195–202.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Grandoch A, Peterke N, Hokamp NG, Zöller JE, Lichenstein T, Neugebauer J. 1.5 T MRI with a dedicated dental signal-amplification coil as noninvasive, radiation-free alternative to CBCT in presurgical implant planning procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(6):1211–8.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Laurino FAR, Choi IGG, Kim JH, Gialain IO, Ferraço R, Haetinger RG, et al. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and cone-beam computed tomography for maxillary sinus graft assessment. Imaging Sci Dent. 2020;50(2):93–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Flügge T, Ludwig U, Amrein P, Kernen F, Vach K, Maier J, et al. MRI for the display of autologous onlay bone grafts during early healing-an experimental study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021;50(2):20200068.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Senel FC, Duran S, Icten O, Izbudak I, Cizmeci F. Assessment of the sinus lift operation by magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;44(6):511–4.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Lockhart PB, Kim S, Lund NL. Magnetic resonance imaging of human teeth. J Endod. 1992;18(5):237–44.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Idiyatullin D, Corum C, Moeller S, Prasad HS, Garwood M, Nixdorf DR. Dental magnetic resonance imaging: making the invisible visible. J Endod. 2011;37(6):745–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Eley KA, McIntyre AG, Watt-Smith SR, Golding SJ. “Black bone” MRI: a partial flip angle technique for radiation reduction in craniofacial imaging. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1011):272–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Bracher AK, Köhler S, Lehmann V, Wolfram U, et al. High-resolution ZTE imaging of human teeth. NMR Biomed. 2012;25(10):1144–51.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Haj Husain A, Valdec S, Stadlinger B, Rücker M, Piccirelli M, Winklhofer S. Preoperative visualization of the lingual nerve by 3D double-echo steady-state MRI in surgical third molar extraction treatment. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(2):2043–53.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Flügge T, Ludwig U, Hövener JB, Kohal R, Wismeijer D, Nelson K. Virtual implant planning and fully guided implant surgery using magnetic resonance imaging—proof of principle. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(6):575–83.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Flügge T, Ludwig U, Winter G, Amrein P, Kernen F, Nelson K. Fully guided implant surgery using magnetic resonance imaging—an in vitro study on accuracy in human mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(8):737–46.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Hilgenfeld T, Juerchott A, Jende JME, Rammelsberg P, Heiland S, Bendszus M, et al. Use of dental MRI for radiation-free guided dental implant planning: a prospective, in vivo study of accuracy and reliability. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(12):6392–401.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Mercado F, Mukaddam K, Filippi A, Bieri OP, Lambrecht TJ, Kühl S. Fully digitally guided implant surgery based on magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(2):529–34.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Schwindling FS, Boehm S, Herpel C, Kronsteiner D, Vogel L, Juerchott A, et al. Geometric reproducibility of three-dimensional oral implant planning based on magnetic resonance imaging and cone-beam computed tomography. J Clin Med. 2021;10(23).
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Flügge T, Derksen W, Te Poel J, Hassan B, Nelson K, Wismeijer D. Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans—a prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(9):1113–8.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(5):265–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Van der Cruyssen F, de Faria VK, Verhelst PJ, Shujaat S, Delsupehe AM, Hauben E, et al. Metal debris after dental implant placement: a proof-of-concept study in fresh frozen cadavers using MRI and histological analysis. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2019;12(3):349–56.PubMed
48.
Zurück zum Zitat DemirturkKocasarac H, Kursun-Cakmak ES, Ustaoglu G, Bayrak S, Orhan K, Noujeim M. Assessment of signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio in 3 T magnetic resonance imaging in the presence of zirconium, titanium, and titanium-zirconium alloy implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020;129(1):80–6.CrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Geibel MA, Gelißen B, Bracher AK, Rasche V. Artifact properties of dental ceramic and titanium implants in MRI. Rofo. 2019;191(5):433–41.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Jungmann PM, Ganter C, Schaeffeler CJ, Bauer JS, Baum T, Meier R, et al. View-angle tilting and slice-encoding metal artifact correction for artifact reduction in MRI: experimental sequence optimization for orthopaedic tumor endoprostheses and clinical application. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4): e0124922.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedrich B, Wostrack M, Ringel F, Ryang YM, Förschler A, Waldt S, et al. Novel metal artifact reduction techniques with use of slice-encoding metal artifact correction and view-angle tilting MR imaging for improved visualization of brain tissue near intracranial aneurysm clips. Clin Neuroradiol. 2016;26(1):31–7.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Probst M, Richter V, Weitz J, Kirschke JS, Ganter C, Troeltzsch M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the inferior alveolar nerve with special regard to metal artifact reduction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(4):558–69.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Hilgenfeld T, Prager M, Heil A, Schwindling FS, Nittka M, Grodzki D, et al. PETRA, MSVAT-SPACE and SEMAC sequences for metal artefact reduction in dental MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(12):5104–12.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Arabi H, Zaidi H. Truncation compensation and metallic dental implant artefact reduction in PET/MRI attenuation correction using deep learning-based object completion. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(19): 195002.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Burger IA, Wurnig MC, Becker AS, Kenkel D, Delso G, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Hybrid PET/MR imaging: an algorithm to reduce metal artifacts from dental implants in Dixon-based attenuation map generation using a multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination sequence. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):93–7.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Schwindling FS, Juerchott A, Boehm S, Rues S, Kronsteiner D, Heiland S, et al. Three-dimensional accuracy of partially guided implant surgery based on dental magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32(10):1218–27.PubMedCrossRef

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Zahnarzt ist meist erste Anlaufstelle bei Trigeminusneuralgie

Mehr als die Hälfte der Patientinnen und Patienten mit Trigeminusneuralgie besucht vor einem Neurochirurgen einen Zahnarzt. Die Diagnose verzögern aber vor allem Besuche bei anderen Fachärzten.

Ursache für Mundgeruch finden: 3 Tests für die Halitosis-Untersuchung

Reflux, CED, chronische Sinusitiden: Mundgeruch kann auch für die hausärztliche Untersuchung relevant sein. Wie Sie Halitosis mit der eigenen Nase am besten bewerten können, erklärt eine Zahnärztin.

Praxisverwaltungssystem erfolgreich wechseln: Auf diese Punkte kommt es an

Viele Praxen denken darüber nach, ihr Praxisverwaltungssystem zu wechseln, weil sie nicht zufrieden sind. Beim Hausärztlichen Praxis- und IT-Kongress ließen sich drei Hausärztinnen und Hausärzte in die Karten schauen, wie sie beim Wechsel vorgegangen sind

Halitosis sollte kein Tabu sein

Bemerken Sie bei einem Patienten einen auffälligen Geruch, der aus Mund und Nase kommt? Sprechen Sie‘s ruhig an! Oftmals sind Betroffene dankbar dafür.

Update Zahnmedizin

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise
Ältere Frau deutet beim Zahnarzt auf Wange/© Maria Vitkovska / Stock.adobe.com (Symbolbild mit Fotomodellen), Arzt beim Recherchieren/© kozirsky / Fotolia