Comparison between cone beam computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the temporomandibular joint.
- Author:
Gyu Tae KIM
1
;
Yong Suk CHOI
;
Eui Hwan HWANG
Author Information
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry and Institute of Oral Biology, Kyung Hee University, Korea. hehan@khu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Temporomandibular Joint;
Mandibular Condyle;
Tomography, Cone Beam Computed;
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- MeSH:
Colon, Sigmoid;
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Diagnostic Imaging;
Displacement (Psychology);
Humans;
Magnetic Resonance Imaging;
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy;
Magnetics;
Magnets;
Mandibular Condyle;
Mouth;
Osteophyte;
Sclerosis;
Temporomandibular Joint;
Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
- From:Korean Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
2008;38(3):153-161
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare and evaluate the diagnostic ability of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CBCT and MRI of 46 TMJs of 23 patients with TMJ disorders were evaluated. They were divided into 3 groups according to the position of the articular disc of the TMJ at closed mouth position and the reduction of the disc during open mouth position on MRI : no disc displacement group (NDD), disc displacement with reduction group (DDR), and disc displacement without reduction group (DDWR). With PACS viewing softwares, position of mandibular condyle in the articular fossa, osseous change of mandibular condyle, shape of articular fossa, and mediolateral and anteroposterior dimensions of mandibular condyle were evaluated on CBCT and MRI. Each value was tested statistically. RESULTS: The position of mandibular condyle in the articular fossa were concentric in the NDD, DDR, and DDWR of CBCT and NDD of MRI. However, condyle was positioned posteriorly in DDR and DDWR of MRI. Flattening, sclerosis and osteophyte of the mandibular condyle were much more apparent on DDR of CBCT than MRI. And the erosion of the condyle was much more apparent on DDWR of MRI than CBCT. Box and Sigmoid types of articular fossa were found most frequently in DDR of MRI. Flattened type was found most frequently in DDR of CBCT and deformed type was found most frequently in DDWR of CBCT. No significant difference in mediolateral and anteroposterior dimensions were shown on CBCT and MRI. CONCLUSION: Since MRI and CBCT has unique diagnostic imaging ability, both modalities should be used together to supplement each other to evaluate TMJ.
