ArticleBMC oral health2026
Quantitative assessment of intraparotid facial nerve visibility using 3D-DESS-WE MRI: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPreserving the intraparotid facial nerve is a crucial aspect of parotid gland surgery to avoid postoperative facial paralysis. While three-dimensional double-echo steady-state with water excitation magnetic resonance imaging has been utilized to directly visualize the nerve, quantitative assessments of its visibility across different branch levels are lacking. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the visibility of the intraparotid facial nerve and its branches using this specific magnetic resonance imaging sequence.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled twenty-two patients with parotid gland tumors who underwent preoperative scanning on a 3.0T scanner. The intraparotid facial nerve was traced and divided into eight specific segments: the main trunk, two primary branches (temporofacial and cervicofacial), and five secondary branches (temporal, zygomatic, superior buccal, inferior buccal, and marginal mandibular). Two observers measured quantitative visibility parameters, including detection rate, signal intensity, signal-to-noise ratio, and signal-to-intensity ratio. Statistical analyses, including Fisher’s exact test and one-way analysis of variance, were performed to compare differences among the nerve segments.
resultsThe main trunk of the facial nerve demonstrated the best visibility with a 100% detection rate. The primary branches also showed high visibility, with a detection rate of 90.9% for both the cervicofacial and temporofacial trunks. Conversely, the secondary branches exhibited significantly lower visibility, with a mean detection rate of 55.5%. Among these, the marginal mandibular branch had the lowest detection rate at 36.4%. There were statistically significant differences in signal intensity, signal-to-noise ratio, and signal-to-intensity ratio between the main trunk, primary branches, and secondary branches.
conclusionsThree-dimensional double-echo steady-state with water excitation magnetic resonance imaging offers excellent visualization of the main trunk and primary branches of the intraparotid facial nerve. However, the visibility of secondary, terminal branches is relatively poor. Improvements in image post-processing algorithms are necessary to enhance the visualization of thinner terminal branches to better assist in surgical planning.
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.