ArticleScientific reports2023
MR-orthopantomography in operative dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery: a proof of concept study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic resonance imaging for jawbone assessment: a systematic review.Head & face medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Magnetic resonance imaging in dental implant surgery: a systematic review.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Intraoperative C-arm CBCT versus early postoperative MRI for the assessment of fracture reduction and osteosynthesis material positioning in cranio-maxillofacial trauma surgery.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Observational
- Automatic Personal Identification Using a Single MRI Slice.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of MRI-based bone-targeted sequences and computed tomography for preoperative assessment of midfacial trauma.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Global research trends in MRI of temporomandibular disorders: a bibliometric study and visualization analysis via CiteSpace.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2025Article
- 3D MR Neurography of Craniocervical Nerves: Comparing Double-Echo Steady-State and Postcontrast STIR with Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction at 1.5T.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Black bone and CT-like MRI-based delineation of fracture-prone regions in oral and maxillofacial trauma.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Can magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reduce lingual nerve injuries during mandibular third molar surgery? A scoping review.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Beyond X-Rays: Unveiling the Future of Dental Diagnosis with Dental Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Automated tooth segmentation in magnetic resonance scans using deep learning - A pilot study.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Article
- Personal identification via matching of curved multiplanar computed tomography reconstructions and panoramic radiographs.PloS one · 2025Article
- Advanced Imaging and Preoperative MR-Based Cinematic Rendering Reconstructions for Neoplasms in the Oral and Maxillofacial Region.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Imaging in Third Molar Surgery: A Clinical Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This prospective study aimed to present, compare, and evaluate the suitability of five different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols (3D double-echo steady-state (DESS), 3D fast spin echo short-tau inversion recovery (SPACE-STIR), 3D fast spin echo spectral attenuated inversion recovery (SPACE-SPAIR), volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (T1-VIBE-Dixon), and ultrashort echo time (UTE)) and for orthopantomogram (OPG)-like MRI reconstructions using a novel mandibular coil. Three readers assessed MR-OPGs of 21 volunteers regarding technical image quality (4, excellent; 0, severely reduced), susceptibility to artifacts (3, absence; 0, massive), and visualization of anatomical structures in the oral cavity and surrounding skeletal structures (4, fine details visible; 0, no structures visible). Average image quality was good (3.29 ± 0.83) for all MRI protocols, with UTE providing the best image quality (3.52 ± 0.62) and no to minor artifacts (2.56 ± 0.6). Full diagnostic interpretability of the osseous structures is best in VIBE-Dixon and UTE MR-OPGs. DESS provided excellent visualization of the finest details of the nervous tissue (3.95 ± 0.22). Intra-reader and inter-reader agreement between the readers was good to excellent for all protocols (ICCs 0.812-0.957). MR-OPGs provide indication-specific accurate imaging of the oral cavity and could contribute to the early detection of pathologies, staging, and radiological follow-up of oral and maxillofacial diseases.
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.