Dataset Information

Diagnostic value of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of temporomandibular joint dysfunction.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To estimate the diagnostic value of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) compared to standard static MRI sequences in patients with TMJ dysfunction (TMD).

Methods and materials

This retrospective study included 71 patients with clinical diagnose of TMD. We acquired 5 static T1- and T2-weighted sequences in parasagittal and paracoronal views and one dynamic sequence (trueFISP) in parasagittal view for each TMJ. Image analysis included evaluation of morphology and function of intra-articular structures and rating of the dynamic images as more, equally, or less informative compared to static MRI sequences.

Results

Mean age was 35.0 ± 14.7 years and 50/71 (70.4%) were female. 127/142 (89.4%) TMJs were of diagnostic quality. 42/127 (33.1%) TMJs showed no disc displacement (DD), 56 (44.1%) had DD with disc reduction (DDwR), and 29 (22.8%) had DD without disc reduction (DDwoR). In 38/127 (29.9%) TMJs, dynamic images were rated "more informative", in 84/127 (66.2%) "equally informative", and in 5/127 (3.9%) "less informative" compared to solely static images. Overall, 27/71 (38.0%) patients benefited from additional dynamic sequences compared to solely static images. Dynamic images were "more informative" in TMJs with DDwR (23/56 [41.1%], p < 0.001) and in TMJs with DDwoR (13/29 [44.8%], p = 0.007), while it had no beneficial value for TMJ without DD. For evaluation of joint effusion, static T2-weighted images were rated better in 102/127 (80.3%) TMJs compared to dynamic images (<0.001).

Conclusion

Dynamic MRI sequences are beneficial for the evaluation of morphology and function of the TMJ compared to static sequences, especially in patients with temporomandibular disc displacement.

SUBMITTER: Vogl TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8648939 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to systematically evaluate the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) in the diagnosis of acetabular labral tears.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP were electronically searched to collect relevant studies on magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of acetabular labral tears from inception to September 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. RevMan 5.3, Meta Disc 1.4, and Stata SE 15.0 were used to investigate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance in patients with acetabular labral tears.ResultsA total of 29 articles were included, involving 1385 participants and 1367 hips. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled positive likelihood ratio, pooled negative likelihood ratio, pooled diagnostic odds ratio, area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic, and Q* of MRI for diagnosing acetabular labral tears were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.80), 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.80), 2.19 (95% CI, 1.76-2.73), 0.48 (95% CI, 0.36-0.65), 4.86 (95% CI, 3.44-6.86), 0.75, and 0.69, respectively. The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled positive likelihood ratio, pooled negative likelihood ratio, pooled diagnostic odds ratio, area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic, and Q* of MRA for diagnosing acetabular labral tears were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.89), 0.64 (95% CI, 0.57-0.71), 2.23 (95% CI, 1.57-3.16), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16-0.27), 10.47 (95% CI, 7.09-15.48), 0.89, and 0.82, respectively.ConclusionMRI has high diagnostic efficacy for acetabular labral tears, and MRA has even higher diagnostic efficacy. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, the above results should be further validated.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been used to diagnose and risk-stratify patients with left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC). The prognostic value of CMR parameters for LVNC, especially feature tracking (CMR-FT), is not well known in LVNC patients with left ventricular dysfunction. The present study aimed to investigate whether the combination of CMR-FT with traditional CMR parameters can increase the prognostic value of CMR for LVNC patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).MethodsA total of 123 candidates were retrospectively included in this multicenter study and 55 LVNC patients (mean age, 45.7 ± 16.2 years; 61.8% men) remained after applying the exclusion criteria. Clinical features, left ventricular (LV) function parameters, global and segment myocardial strain, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) were evaluated. The outcomes include the composite events of cardiovascular death, heart transplantation, hospitalization for heart failure, thromboembolic events, and ventricular arrhythmias.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 5.17 years (interquartile range: 0.17 to 10.58 years), 24 (36.8%) patients experienced at least one major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). The myocardial strain parameters of patients with events were lower than those of patients without events. In the univariable Cox analysis, LVEF, the presence of LGE, global longitudinal strain (GLS) and segmental strains, including longitudinal strain at the apical level and radial and circumferential strain at the basal level, were significantly associated with MACEs. In the multivariate analysis, LGE (hazard ratio (HR) 3.452, 95% CI 1.133 to 10.518, p = 0.029) was a strong predictor of MACEs and significantly improved the predictive value (chi-square of the model after adding LGE: 7.51 vs. 13.47, p = 0.009). However, myocardial strain parameters were not statistically significant for the prediction of MACEs after adjusting for age, body mass index, LVEF and the presence of LGE and did not increase the prognostic value (chi-square of the model after adding GLS: 13.47 vs. 14.14, p = 0.411) in the multivariate model.ConclusionsThe combination of CMR-FT with traditional CMR parameters may not increase the prognostic value of CMR in LVNC patients with reduced LVEF, while the presence of LGE was a strong independent predictor of MACEs and significantly improved the predictive value.