Sensitivity and Specificity of MRI versus CBCT to Detect Vertical Root Fractures Using MicroCT as a Reference Standard.

INTRODUCTION: Vertical root fracture (VRF) in root-canal-treated teeth frequently results in tooth loss, partly because VRFs are difficult to diagnose and when detected the fracture is often beyond the point of preservation with surgical intervention. Nonionizing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has demonstrated the ability to detect small VRFs, but it is unknown how its diagnostic capabilities compare with the current imaging standard for VRF detection, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). This investigation aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity between MRI and CBCT for detecting VRF, using micro-computed tomography (microCT) as a reference. METHODS: A total of 120 extracted human tooth roots were root canal treated using common techniques, and VRFs were mechanically induced in a proportion. Samples were imaged using MRI, CBCT, and microCT. Axial MRI and CBCT images were examined by 3 board-certified endodontists, who evaluated VRF status (yes/no) and gave a confidence assessment for that decision, from which a receiver operating characteristic curve was generated. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were calculated, sensitivity and specificity, and area under the curve. RESULTS: Intra-rater reliability was 0.29-0.48 for MRI and 0.30-0.44 for CBCT. Inter-rater reliability for MRI was 0.37 and for CBCT 0.49. Sensitivity was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.78) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.45-0.70), and specificity 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.83) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75-0.95) for MRI and CBCT, respectively. Area under the curve was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.65-0.83) for MRI and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66-0.84) for CBCT. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity between MRI and CBCT in detecting VRF, despite the early-stage development of MRI.

Minimal Detectable Width of Tooth Fractures Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Method to Measure.

INTRODUCTION: Vertical root fracture (VRF) in root canal-treated (RCT) teeth is a common cause of pain, bone resorption, and tooth loss. VRF is also difficult to diagnose and measure. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to identify VRF due to beneficial partial volume averaging, without using ionizing radiation. This investigation aimed to describe the narrowest VRFs detectable based on MRI, using micro-computed tomography (microCT) as the reference standard and proposes a method using profile integrals to measure the widths of small VRFs. METHODS: VRFs were induced in 62 RCT tooth root samples. All samples were imaged in a phantom using MRI and reference imaging was obtained using microCT. The stacks of 3-dimensional axial MRIs were assessed by 3 board-certified endodontists. Evaluators determined the most coronal slice within the stack that was discernible as the extent of the VRF. This slice was measured on correlated microCT sections to determine the minimum VRF width (µm) detectable using a profile integral-based method to measure small fractures and negate the effects of the point spread function. RESULTS: Using profile integrals to measure VRF width was repeatable and resulted in estimates that were on average 1 µm smaller than known reference widths. Adjusted median VRF width detected using MRI was 45 µm (first quartile: 26 µm, third quartile: 64 µm). CONCLUSION: Using profile integrals is a valid way to estimate small VRF width. The MRI approach demonstrated ability to repeatedly detect VRFs as small as 26 µm.

Design of an Intraoral Dipole Antenna for Dental Applications.

OBJECTIVE: In dental MRI, intraoral coils provide higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than coils placed outside the mouth. This study aims to design an intraoral dipole antenna and demonstrates the feasibility of combining it with an extraoral coil. METHODS: Dipole antenna design was chosen over loop design, as it is open toward the distal; therefore, it does not restrain tongue movement. The dipole design offers also an increased depth-of-sensitivity that allows for MRI of dental roots. Different dipole antenna designs were simulated using a finite-difference-time-domain approach. Ribbon, wire, and multi-wire arms were compared. The best design was improved further by covering the ends of the dipole arms with a high-permittivity material. Phantom and in vivo measurements were conducted on a 3T clinical MRI system. RESULTS: The best transmit efficiency and homogeneity was achieved with a multi-wire curved dipole antenna with 7 wires for each arm. With an additional high-permittivity cap the transmit field inhomogeneity was further reduced from 20% to 5% along the dipole arm. When combined with extraoral flexible surface-coil, the coupling between the coils was less than -32dB and SNR was increased. CONCLUSION: Using intraoral dipole design instead of loop improves patient comfort. We demonstrated feasibility of the intraoral dipole combined with an extraoral flexible coil-array for dental MRI. Dipole antenna enabled decreasing imaging field-of-view, and reduced the prevalent signal from tongue. SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights the advantages and the main challenges of the intraoral RF coils and describes a novel RF coil that addresses those challenges.

SUNCT/SUNA: Case series presenting in an orofacial pain clinic.

AIM: Little is known about short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA). We present our experience with SUNCT/SUNA patients to aid identification and management of these disorders. METHODS: A retrospective review of patient records of one orofacial pain clinic was performed. Inclusion criteria was a diagnosis of SUNCT/SUNA confirmed with at least one follow-up visit. RESULTS: Six of the 2464 new patients seen between 2015-2018 met the selection criteria (SUNCT n = 2, SUNA n = 4). Gender distribution was one male to one female and average age of diagnosis was 52 years (range 26-62). Attacks were located in the V1/V2 trigeminal distributions, and five patients reported associated intraoral pain. Pain quality was sharp, shooting, and burning with two patients reporting "numbness". Pain was moderate-severe in intensity, with daily episodes that typically lasted for seconds. Common autonomic features were lacrimation, conjunctival injection, rhinorrhea, and flushing. Frequent triggers were touching the nose or a specific intraoral area. Lamotrigine and gabapentin were commonly used as initial therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Differentiating between SUNCT/SUNA does not appear to be clinically relevant. Presenting symptoms were consistent with those published, except 5/6 patients describing intraoral pain and two patients describing paresthesia.