ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative evaluation of MRI-based bone-targeted sequences and computed tomography for preoperative assessment of midfacial trauma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This prospective study aimed to compare computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the preoperative assessment of acute midfacial trauma. Twenty patients received posttraumatic CT and MRI scans using a 3T scanner with a dedicated 15-channel dentomaxillofacial coil. Five MRI protocols were evaluated: UTE, DESS, Dark Bone, StarVIBE, and STIR. Three observers qualitatively assessed fracture detection, image quality, fracture line visibility, cortical delineation, and bone-to-soft-tissue contrast using a five-point scale. Descriptive statistics and inter-observer reliability (Krippendorff's α) were calculated. Forty-two fractures were analyzed. CT achieved excellent fracture detection (98% of fractures detected; α = 1.0) with the fastest evaluation times (30-82 s vs. 42-145 s). Among MRI protocols, UTE and StarVIBE performed best, detecting 88-89% of fractures, with excellent image quality and high inter-observer reliability (α = 0.80-0.91). Darkbone, DESS, and STIR consistently showed lower detection rates (up to 43%). UTE and StarVIBE were particularly effective for orbital, zygomaticomaxillary, and nasal bone fractures. Optimized gradient-echo-based MRI protocols provide radiation-free, CT-like imaging of midfacial fractures with superior soft-tissue contrast. While CT remains essential for emergency situations, a patient-, protocol-, and pathology-specific MR-based diagnostic approach offers a clinically feasible preoperative alternative in trauma management.Trial registration number: Swiss National Clinical Trials Portal: SNCTP000006343, ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT07012850 (trial registration date: May 9, 2025).
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.