ArticleAcademic radiology2020
Bone-Selective MRI as a Nonradiative Alternative to CT for Craniofacial Imaging.
Article in Academic radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Alveolar Bone Volume Fraction in Dental Implantology Using 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: AnIEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Black bone and CT-like MRI-based delineation of fracture-prone regions in oral and maxillofacial trauma.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Triplanar Point Cloud Reconstruction of Head Skin Surface from Computed Tomography Images in Markerless Image-Guided Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Three contrasts in 3 min: Rapid, high-resolution, and bone-selective UTE MRI for craniofacial imaging with automated deep-learning skull segmentation.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Craniofacial Imaging of Pediatric Patients by Ultrashort Echo-Time Bone-Selective MRI in Comparison to CT.Academic radiology · 2024Article
- Cranial bone imaging using ultrashort echo-time bone-selective MRI as an alternative to gradient-echo based "black-bone" techniques.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- MRI-based cephalometrics: a scoping review of current insights and future perspectives.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three-Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2022Review
- Automatic Segmentation of Bone Selective MR Images for Visualization and Craniometry of the Cranial Vault.Academic radiology · 2022Article
- Complexity and data mining in dental research: A network medicine perspective on interceptive orthodontics.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONAL AND
objectivesComputed tomography (CT) is the clinical gold-standard for high-resolution 3D visualization of cortical bone structures. However, ionizing radiation is of concern, particularly for pediatric patients. This study evaluates the feasibility of producing 3D human skull renderings using a novel bone-selective magnetic resonance imaging technique. MATERIALS AND
methodsA dual-radiofrequency pulse, dual-echo, 3D ultrashort echo time sequence was applied for scanning of a cadaver skull and five healthy adult subjects. Scans were each completed within 6 minutes. Semiautomatic segmentation of bone voxels was performed using ITK-SNAP software, leading to 3D renderings of the skulls. For comparison, thin-slice head CT scans were performed. Mimics software was used to measure eight anatomic distances from 3D renderings. Lin's Concordance Correlation test was applied to assess agreement between measurements from MR-based and CT-based 3D skull renderings.
resultsThe 3D rendered MR images depict most craniofacial features (e.g., zygomatic arch), although some voxels were erroneously included or excluded in the renderings. MR-based measurements differed from CT-based measurements by mean percent difference ranging from 2.3%-5.0%. Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficients for MR-based vs CT-based measurements ranged from 0.998-1.000.
conclusionThe proposed dual-radiofrequency dual-echo 3D ultrashort echo time imaging technique produces high-resolution bone-specific images within a clinically feasible imaging time, leading to clear visualization of craniofacial skeletal structures. Concordance coefficients suggest good reliability of the method compared to CT. The method is currently limited by time and manual input necessary for segmentation correction. Further investigation is needed for more accurate 3D renderings and for scanning of pediatric patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.