Magnetic resonance imaging in dental implant surgery: a systematic review
- Open Access
- 01.12.2024
- Review
Abstract
Background
Materials and methods
Search strategy
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
Study selection and eligibility criteria
Data extraction and collection
Risk-of-bias assessment and quality assessment of studies
Results
Study selection
Study characteristics
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
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%) |