ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Is 3T MR nerve-bone fusion imaging a viable alternative to MRI-CBCT to identify the relationship between the inferior alveolar nerve and mandibular third molar.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of 5T high-field MRI for identification of mandibular third molar and inferior alveolar nerve structures: a study compared with 3T MRI and CBCT.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Grading cervical neural foraminal stenosis via 3-T MR nerve/bone fusion imaging compared with T2-weighted imaging.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Can magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reduce lingual nerve injuries during mandibular third molar surgery? A scoping review.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Fusion of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance neurography and T1-weighted imaging improves simultaneous nerve-tumor visualization in head and neck lesions.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the feasibility of MRI nerve-bone fusion imaging in assessing the relationship between inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) / mandibular canal (MC) and mandibular third molar (MTM) compared with MRI-CBCT fusion. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe MRI nerve-bone fusion and MRI-CBCT fusion imaging were performed in 20 subjects with 37 MTMs. The Hausdorff distance (HD) value and dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was calculated. The relationship between IAN/MC and MTM roots, inflammatory, and fusion patterns were compared between these two fused images. The reliability was assessed using a weighted κ statistic.
resultsThe mean HD and DSC ranged from 0.62 ~ 1.35 and 0.83 ~ 0.88 for MRI nerve-bone fusion, 0.98 ~ 1.50 and 0.76 ~ 0.83 for MRI-CBCT fusion. MR nerve-bone fusion had considerable reproducibility compared to MRI-CBCT fusion in relation classification (MR nerve-bone fusion κ = 0.694, MRI-CBCT fusion κ = 0.644), direct contact (MR nerve-bone fusion κ = 0.729, MRI-CBCT fusion κ = 0.720), and moderate to good agreement for inflammation detection (MR nerve-bone fusion κ = 0.603, MRI-CBCT fusion κ = 0.532, average). The MR nerve-bone fusion imaging showed a lower ratio of larger pattern compared to MR-CBCT fusion (16.2% VS 27.3% in the molar region, and 2.7% VS 5.4% in the retromolar region). And the average time spent on MR nerve-bone fusion and MRI-CBCT fusion was 1 min and 3 min, respectively.
conclusionsBoth MR nerve-bone fusion and MRI-CBCT fusion exhibited good consistency in evaluating the spatial relationship between IAN/MC and MTM, fusion effect, and inflammation detection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: MR nerve-bone fusion imaging can be a preoperative one-stop radiation-free examination for patients at high risk for MTM surgery.
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.