Observational studyOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Diagnostic performance of CT and MRI in mandibular trauma assessment - a prospective comparative study.
Observational study in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07012850 (Advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Perioperative Evaluation of Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial Trauma), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Perioperative Evaluation of Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial Trauma
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Comparative evaluation of MRI-based bone-targeted sequences and computed tomography for preoperative assessment of midfacial trauma.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for surgically relevant parameters in mandibular trauma, evaluating five in-house-optimized MRI protocols with a dedicated 15-channel mandibular coil.
methodsFifteen patients with 30 acute mandibular fractures underwent 3T MRI using five optimized protocols: UTE, StarVIBE, Dark Bone, DESS, and STIR. Three independent observers qualitatively rated image quality, fracture line visibility, cortical delineation, and bone-to-soft-tissue contrast on a five-point visual analog scale (5 = best, 1 = lowest). Quantitative analysis included measurement of the maximum distance of the fracture gap. Descriptive statistics and inter-observer agreement (Krippendorff’s α) were calculated.
resultsCT enabled rapid and accurate fracture detection in all cases. Among MRI protocols, UTE (85% of fractures correctly identified and accurately diagnosed) and StarVIBE (75%) demonstrated the best diagnostic performance, with excellent fracture line visibility, sharp cortical delineation, and strong inter-observer agreement (α = 0.7–1.0.7.0). Dark Bone and DESS provided variable results, while STIR was the least suitable for fracture depiction despite good soft-tissue contrast. Quantitative assessment of fracture gap distance showed the highest accuracy with StarVIBE, demonstrating minimal deviation compared to CT (0.13–0.21 mm; p > 0.05).
conclusionWhile CT remains the standard in emergency settings and for delineating complex osseous pathologies, MRI, combining CT-like and water-sensitive sequences, offers a promising radiation-free alternative for simultaneous visualization of hard and soft tissues. This approach may facilitate comprehensive radiation-free trauma evaluation, improve detection of concomitant injuries, and further support individualized clinical decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Swiss National Clinical Trials Portal: SNCTP000006343, ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT07012850.
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.