Magnetic resonance imaging for jawbone assessment: a systematic review

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-04-19 DOI:10.1186/s13005-024-00424-2
Hian Parize, Sofya Sadilina, Ricardo Armini Caldas, João Victor Cunha Cordeiro, Johannes Kleinheinz, Dalva Cruz Laganá, Newton Sesma, Lauren Bohner
{"title":"Magnetic resonance imaging for jawbone assessment: a systematic review","authors":"Hian Parize, Sofya Sadilina, Ricardo Armini Caldas, João Victor Cunha Cordeiro, Johannes Kleinheinz, Dalva Cruz Laganá, Newton Sesma, Lauren Bohner","doi":"10.1186/s13005-024-00424-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for jawbone assessment compared to reference-standard measurements in the literature. An electronic database search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library in June 2022, and updated in August 2023. Studies evaluating the accuracy of MRI for jawbone assessment compared with reference-standard measurements (histology, physical measurements, or computed tomography) were included. The outcome measures included bone histomorphometry and linear measurements. The risk of bias was assessed by the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022342697). From 63 studies selected for full-text analysis, nine manuscripts were considered eligible for this review. The studies included assessments of 54 participants, 35 cadavers, and one phantom. A linear measurement error ranging from 0.03 to 3.11 mm was shown. The accuracy of bone histomorphometry varies among studies. Limitations of the evidence included heterogeneity of MRI protocols and the methodology of the included studies. Few studies have suggested the feasibility of MRI for jawbone assessment, as MRI provides comparable results to those of standard reference tests. However, further advancements and optimizations are needed to increase the applicability, validate the efficacy, and establish clinical utility of these methods.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"94 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-024-00424-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for jawbone assessment compared to reference-standard measurements in the literature. An electronic database search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library in June 2022, and updated in August 2023. Studies evaluating the accuracy of MRI for jawbone assessment compared with reference-standard measurements (histology, physical measurements, or computed tomography) were included. The outcome measures included bone histomorphometry and linear measurements. The risk of bias was assessed by the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022342697). From 63 studies selected for full-text analysis, nine manuscripts were considered eligible for this review. The studies included assessments of 54 participants, 35 cadavers, and one phantom. A linear measurement error ranging from 0.03 to 3.11 mm was shown. The accuracy of bone histomorphometry varies among studies. Limitations of the evidence included heterogeneity of MRI protocols and the methodology of the included studies. Few studies have suggested the feasibility of MRI for jawbone assessment, as MRI provides comparable results to those of standard reference tests. However, further advancements and optimizations are needed to increase the applicability, validate the efficacy, and establish clinical utility of these methods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于颌骨评估的磁共振成像:系统性综述
评估磁共振成像(MRI)与文献中的参考标准测量值相比,在颌骨评估方面的准确性。于 2022 年 6 月在 PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 中进行了电子数据库检索,并于 2023 年 8 月进行了更新。纳入的研究评估了磁共振成像与参考标准测量(组织学、物理测量或计算机断层扫描)相比在颌骨评估方面的准确性。结果测量包括骨组织形态测量和线性测量。偏倚风险通过诊断准确性研究质量评估工具(QUADAS-2)进行评估。该综述已在 PROSPERO 数据库(CRD42022342697)中注册。从 63 篇被选中进行全文分析的研究中,有 9 篇手稿被认为符合本综述的要求。这些研究包括对 54 名参与者、35 具尸体和一个模型的评估。结果显示,线性测量误差从 0.03 毫米到 3.11 毫米不等。不同研究中骨组织形态测量的准确性各不相同。证据的局限性包括核磁共振成像方案和所纳入研究的方法的异质性。很少有研究表明核磁共振成像用于颌骨评估是可行的,因为核磁共振成像可提供与标准参考测试相当的结果。然而,要提高这些方法的适用性、验证其有效性并确定其临床实用性,还需要进一步的改进和优化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1