In vivo comparison of MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analysis: beginning of a non-ionizing diagnostic era in craniomaxillofacial imaging?

Objectives To evaluate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can serve as an alternative diagnostic tool to the gold standard cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in 3D cephalometric analysis. Methods In this prospective feasibility study, 12 patients (8 males, 4 females; mean age +/- SD, 26.1 years +/- 6.6) underwent 3D MRI and CBCT before orthognathic surgery. 3D cephalometric analysis was performed twice by two independent observers on both modalities. For each dataset, 27 cephalometric landmarks were defined from which 35 measurements (17 angles, 18 distances) were calculated. Statistical analyses included the calculation of Euclidean distances, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman analysis, and equivalence testing (linear mixed effects model) with a predefined equivalence margin of +/- 1 degrees/1 mm. Results Analysis of reliability for CBCT vs. MRI (intra-rater I/intra-rater II/inter-rater) revealed Euclidean distances of 0.86/0.86/0.98 mm vs. 0.93/0.99/1.10 mm for landmarks, ICCs of 0.990/0.980/0.986 vs. 0.982/0.978/0.980 for angles, and ICCs of 0.992/0.988/0.989 vs. 0.991/0.985/0.988 for distances. Bland-Altman analysis showed high levels of agreement between CBCT and MRI with bias values (95% levels of agreement) of 0.03 degrees (- 1.49; 1.54) for angles and 0.02 mm (- 1.44; 1.47) for distances. In the linear mixed effects model, the mean values of CBCT and MRI measurements were equivalent. Conclusion This feasibility study indicates that MRI enables reliable 3D cephalometric analysis with excellent agreement to corresponding measurements on CBCT. Thus, MRI could serve as a non-ionizing alternative to CBCT for treatment planning and monitoring in orthodontics as well as oral and maxillofacial surgery.