| Title |
MRI vs. CT for orthodontic applications: comparison of two MRI protocols and three CT (multislice, cone-beam, industrial) technologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00056-016-0028-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Detterbeck, Michael Hofmeister, Elisabeth Hofmann, Daniel Haddad, Daniel Weber, Astrid Hölzing, Simon Zabler, Matthias Schmid, Karl-Heinz Hiller, Peter Jakob, Jens Engel, Jochen Hiller, Ursula Hirschfelder |
| Abstract |
To examine the relative usefulness and suitability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in daily clinical practice as compared to various technologies of computed tomography (CT) in addressing questions of orthodontic interest. Three blinded raters evaluated 2D slices and 3D reconstructions created from scans of two pig heads. Five imaging modalities were used, including three CT technologies-multislice (MSCT), cone-beam CT (CBCT), and industrial (µCT)-and two MRI protocols with different scan durations. Defined orthodontic parameters were rated one by one on the 2D slices and the 3D reconstructions, followed by final overall ratings for each modality. A mixed linear model was used for statistical analysis. Based on the 2D slices, the parameter of visualizing tooth-germ topography did not yield any significantly different ratings for MRI versus any of the CT scans. While some ratings for the other parameters did involve significant differences, how these should be interpreted depends greatly on the relevance of each parameter. Based on the 3D reconstructions, the only significant difference between technologies was noted for the parameter of visualizing root-surface morphology. Based on the final overall ratings, the imaging performance of the standard MRI protocol was noninferior to the performance of the three CT technologies. On comparing the imaging performance of MRI and CT scans, it becomes clear that MRI has a huge potential for applications in daily clinical practice. Given its additional benefits of a good contrast ratio and complete absence of ionizing radiation, further studies are needed to explore this clinical potential in greater detail. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 15 | 79% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 84% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,454,538
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie
#87
of 142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,638
of 303,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them