Comparison of the Visibility of Fetal Tooth Buds on 1.5 and 3 Tesla MRI

Abstract

Dental anomalies coincide with genetic disorders, and prenatal identification may contribute to a more accurate diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess whether fetal Magnet Resonance Imaging (MRI) is suitable to visualize and investigate intrauterine dental development in the upper jaw, and to compare the quality of visibility of tooth buds between 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3T images. MR images of fetuses Gestational Week (GW) 26.71 ± 4.97 from 286 pregnant women with diagnoses unrelated to dental anomalies were assessed by three raters. We compared the visibility between groups and field strengths in five gestational age groups, using chi square and Fisher’s exact tests. All ten primary tooth buds were identifiable in 5.4% at GW 18–21, in 75.5% at GW 26–29, and in 90.6% at GW 34+. Before GW 30, more tooth buds were identifiable on 3T images than on 1.5T images. Statistical significance was only reached for identification of incisors (p = 0.047). Therefore, 1.5T and 3T images are viable to visualize tooth buds, particularly after GW 25, and their analysis may serve as diagnostic criterion. MRI tooth bud data might have an impact on various fields of research, such as the maldevelopment of teeth and their causes. Analyzing tooth buds as an additional diagnostic criterion is not time consuming, and could lead to an improvement of syndrome diagnosis.

CT and MR Appearance of Teeth: Analysis of Anatomy and Embryology and Implications for Disease

“…Eruption sequences are fairly consistent and well-documented in the literature but are beyond the scope of this article [ 25 , 26 ]. All primary tooth germs and first permanent molar tooth germs are detectable by MRI at birth [ 27 ]. It is important to note, however, that at birth, none of the teeth are erupted into the oral cavity.…”

Craniofacial phenotyping with fetal MRI: a feasibility study of 3D visualisation, segmentation, surface-rendered and physical models

“…Zemet (2020), Gai (2022), Arangio (2013) and co-authors, confirmed the added diagnostic value of fetal MRI for evaluation of fetal craniofacial anomalies in retrospective studies comparing MRI and US [10][11][12]. Other studies have focussed on the MRI imaging of specific features, pathology and measurements within the craniofacial anatomy, for example; the orbits [13][14][15]; orofacial clefts, including cleft lip and palate [16][17][18][19][20][21]; inner, middle and external ear structures [22][23][24][25]; the upper and lower jaw [26][27][28]; and skull shape deformities to include craniosynostosis [29][30][31]. Due to the relative rarity of craniofacial malformations, most fetal MRI studies are retrospective in nature, consist of case series studies, and there are a lack of control subjects to assess diagnostic accuracy in a clinical setting.…”

Craniofacial phenotyping with fetal MRI: A feasibility study of 3D visualisation, segmentation, surface-rendered and physical models

“…Zemet (2020), Gai (2022), Arangio (2013) and co-authors, confirmed the added diagnostic value of fetal MRI for evaluation of fetal craniofacial anomalies in retrospective studies comparing MRI and US [10][11][12]. Other studies have focussed on the MRI imaging of specific features, pathology and measurements within the craniofacial anatomy, for example; the orbits [13][14][15]; orofacial clefts, including cleft lip and palate [16][17][18][19][20][21]; inner, middle and external ear structures [22][23][24][25]; the upper and lower jaw [26][27][28]; and skull shape deformities to include craniosynostosis [29][30][31]. Due to the relative rarity of craniofacial malformations, most MRI studies are retrospective in nature, consist of case series and case studies, and there is a lack of control subjects to assess diagnostic accuracy in a clinical setting.…”