Diagnostic value of MRI for odontogenic tumours.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic value of MRI for odontogenic tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 51 patients with odontogenic tumours were subjected to pre-operative MRI examinations. For tumours with liquid components, i.e. ameloblastomas and keratocystic odontogenic tumours (KCOTs), the signal intensity (SI) uniformity of their cystic components (UΣ) was calculated and then their UΣ values were compared. For tumours with solid components that had been examined using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), their CImax (maximum contrast index), Tmax (the time when CImax occurred), CIpeak (CImax × 0.90), Tpeak (the time when CIpeak occurred) and CI300 (i.e. the CI observed at 300 s after contrast medium injection) values were determined from CI curves. We then classified the odontogenic tumours according to their DCE-MRI parameters. RESULTS: Significant differences between the UΣ values of the ameloblastomas and KCOT were observed on T1 weighted images, T2 weighted images and short TI inversion recovery images. Depending on their DCE-MRI parameters, we classified the odontogenic tumours into the following five types: Type A, CIpeak > 2.0 and Tpeak < 200 s; Type B, CIpeak < 2.0 and Tpeak < 200 s; Type C, CI300 > 2.0 and Tmax < 600 s; Type D, CI300 > 2.0 and Tmax > 600 s; Type E, CI300 < 2.0 and Tmax > 600 s. CONCLUSION: Cystic component SI uniformity was found to be useful for differentiating between ameloblastomas and KCOT. However, the DCE-MRI parameters of odontogenic tumours, except for odontogenic fibromas and odontogenic myxomas, contributed little to their differential diagnosis.

Evaluation of panoramic radiographs taken at the initial visit at a department of paediatric dentistry.

OBJECTIVES: To examine oral and maxillofacial lesions other than those related to the chief complaint in panoramic radiographs taken at the department of paediatric dentistry at our hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all 1092 patients who had visited the department of paediatric dentistry at our hospital and had a panoramic radiograph taken between August 1999 and October 2004. The following information was obtained from the patients' files and panoramic radiographs: gender, age, chief complaints and the presence or absence of lesions. RESULTS: Lesions were observed in 140 of the 1092 panoramic radiographs (12.8%). Among the 140 patients discovered to have lesions in the panoramic radiographs, 66 (47.1%, or 6.05% of the entire group of 1092 patients) had different lesions from those underlying the chief complaint. These 66 patients ages ranged from 3 years to 14 years and the lesions involved 39 (59.1%) missing teeth, 20 (30.3%) mesiodentes, 4 supernumerary teeth, 1 odontoma, 1 radicular cyst and 1 impacted tooth. The missing teeth were observed in the central and lateral incisor, canine, and first and second premolar positions of both jaws, especially in the lower lateral incisor and upper central incisor positions. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to detect incidental lesions at a rate of 6.05% (66 of 1092 patients) and at a relatively early age (mean 6.8 years) in the present study. Early treatment of these lesions could avoid maxillofacial deformity and other complications.