[1] Pache G, Krauss B, Strohm P, Saueressig U, Blanke P, Bulla S, Schäfer O, Helwig P, Kotter E, Langer M,
Baumann T. Dual-energy CT virtual noncalcium technique: detecting posttraumatic bone marrow
lesions--feasibility study. Radiology. 2010 Aug;256(2):617-24.
[2] Reagan AC, Mallinson PI, O'Connell T, McLaughlin PD, Krauss B, Munk PL, Nicolaou S, Ouellette HA.
Dual-energy computed tomographic virtual noncalcium algorithm for detection of bone marrow edema in
acute fractures: early experiences. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014 Sep-Oct;38(5):802-5.
[3] Schulz B, Kuehling K, Kromen W, Siebenhandl P, Kerl MJ, Vogl TJ, Bauer R. Automatic bone removal
technique in whole-body dual-energy CT angiography: performance and image quality. AJR Am J
10
Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5):W646-50.
11
[4] Watanabe Y, Uotani K, Nakazawa T, Higashi M, Yamada N, Hori Y, Kanzaki S, Fukuda T, Itoh T, Naito H.
12
Dual-energy direct bone removal CT angiography for evaluation of intracranial aneurysm or stenosis:
13
comparison with conventional digital subtraction angiography. Eur Radiol. 2009 Apr;19(4):1019-24.
14
[5] Bauer RW, Kerl JM, Weber E, Weisser P, Korkusuz H, Lehnert T, Jacobi V, Vogl TJ. Lung perfusion
15
analysis with dual energy CT in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism--influence of window
16
settings on the diagnosis of underlying pathologies of perfusion defects. Eur J Radiol. 2011
17
Dec;80(3):e476-82.
18
[6] Vogler JB 3rd, Murphy WA. Bone marrow imaging. Radiology. 1988 Sep;168(3):679-93.
19
[7] Hayes CW, Conway WF, Daniel WW. MR imaging of bone marrow edema pattern: transient osteoporosis,
20
transient bone marrow edema syndrome, or osteonecrosis. Radiographics. 1993 Sep;13(5):1001-11;
21
discussion 1012.
22
23
[8] Roele ED, Timmer VCML, Vaassen LAA, van Kroonenburgh AMJL, Postma AA. Dual-Energy CT in
Head and Neck Imaging. Curr Radiol Rep. 2017;5(5):19.
24
[9] Iida S, Harada Y, Shimizu K, Sakamoto M, Ikenoue S, Akita T, Kitahara H, Moriya H. Correlation
25
between bone marrow edema and collapse of the femoral head in steroid-induced osteonecrosis. AJR Am
26
J Roentgenol. 2000 Mar;174(3):735-43.
27
[10] Ito H, Matsuno T, Minami A. Relationship between bone marrow edema and development of symptoms
in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jun;186(6):1761-70.
[11] Ragab Y, Emad Y, Abou-Zeid A. Bone marrow edema syndromes of the hip: MRI features in different
hip disorders. Clin Rheumatol. 2008 Apr;27(4):475-82.
[12] Soluk-Tekkeşin M, Wright JM. The World Health Organization Classification of Odontogenic Lesions: A
Summary of the Changes of the 2017 (4th) Edition. Turk Patoloji Derg. 2018;34(1).
[13] Prockt AP, Schebela CR, Maito FD, Sant'Ana-Filho M, Rados PV. Odontogenic cysts: analysis of 680
cases in Brazil. Head Neck Pathol. 2008 Sep;2(3):150-6.
[14] Shear M. Developmental odontogenic cysts. An update. J Oral Pathol Med. 1994 Jan;23(1):1-11.
[15] Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Osterhoff G, Wanner GA, Fortunati M, Andreisek G, Alkadhi H,
10
Stolzmann P. Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo
11
evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels. Eur Radiol.
12
2012 Nov;22(11):2357-64.
13
[16] Bongers MN, Schabel C, Thomas C, Raupach R, Notohamiprodjo M, Nikolaou K, Bamberg F.
14
Comparison and Combination of Dual-Energy- and Iterative-Based Metal Artefact Reduction on Hip
15
Prosthesis and Dental Implants. PLoS One. 2015 Nov 24;10(11):e0143584.
16
[17] Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TR. Metal artifact reduction by dual
17
energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol. 2011 Jul;21(7):1424-9.
18
[18] Tsukamoto G, Sasaki A, Akiyama T, Ishikawa T, Kishimoto K, Nishiyama A, Matsumura T. A
19
radiologic analysis of dentigerous cysts and odontogenic keratocysts associated with a mandibular third
20
molar. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001 Jun;91(6):743-7.
21
22
[19] Chrcanovic BR, Gomez RS. Recurrence probability for keratocystic odontogenic tumors: An analysis of
6427 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Feb;45(2):244-251.
23
[20] Uehara K, Hisatomi M, Munhoz L, Kawazu T, Yanagi Y, Okada S, Takeshita Y, Saito EA, Asaumi J.
24
Assessment of Hounsfield unit in the differential diagnosis of odontogenic cysts. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.
25
2021 Feb 1;50(2):20200188.
26
[21] Crusoé-Rebello I, Oliveira C, Campos PS, Azevedo RA, dos Santos JN. Assessment of computerized
27
tomography density patterns of ameloblastomas and keratocystic odontogenic tumors. Oral Surg Oral
Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Oct;108(4):604-8.
[22] Lamba R, McGahan JP, Corwin MT, Li CS, Tran T, Seibert JA, Boone JM. CT Hounsfield numbers of
soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT scans: variability between two different manufacturers' MDCT
scanners. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Nov;203(5):1013-20.
[23] Cankurtaran CZ, Branstetter BF 4th, Chiosea SI, Barnes EL Jr. Best cases from the AFIP:
ameloblastoma and dentigerous cyst associated with impacted mandibular third molar tooth.
Radiographics. 2010 Sep;30(5):1415-20.
[24] Martinelli-Kläy CP, Martinelli CR, Martinelli C, Macedo HR, Lombardi T. Unusual Imaging Features of
Dentigerous Cyst: A Case Report. Dent J (Basel). 2019 Aug 1;7(3):76.
10
[25] Eida S, Hotokezaka Y, Katayama I, Ichikawa Y, Tashiro S, Sumi T, Sumi M, Nakamura T. Apparent
11
diffusion coefficient-based differentiation of cystic lesions of the mandible. Oral Radiol 2012; 28:
12
109–14.
13
[26] Yoshiura K, Higuchi Y, Ariji Y, Shinohara M, Yuasa K, Nakayama E, Ban S, Kanda S. Increased
14
attenuation in odontogenic keratocysts with computed tomography: a new finding. Dentomaxillofac
15
Radiol. 1994 Aug;23(3):138-42.
16
17
[27] Yonetsu K, Bianchi JG, Troulis MJ, Curtin HD. Unusual CT appearance in an odontogenic keratocyst of
the mandible: case report. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001 Nov-Dec;22(10):1887-9.
18
[28] Timmer VCML, Kroonenburgh AMJLV, Henneman WJP, Vaassen LAA, Roele ED, Kessler PAWH,
19
Postma AA. Detection of Bone Marrow Edema in the Head and Neck With Dual-Energy CT: Ready for
20
Clinical Use? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Apr;214(4):893-899.
21
22
[29] Yang P, Wu G, Chang X. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography in bone marrow
edema with vertebral compression fractures: A meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2018 Feb;99:124-129.
23
[30] Suh CH, Yun SJ, Jin W, Park SY, Ryu CW, Lee SH. Diagnostic Performance of In-Phase and
24
Opposed-Phase Chemical-Shift Imaging for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Vertebral Marrow
25
Lesions: A Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Oct;211(4):W188-W197.
26
27
28
TABLE CAPTIONS
Table 1. Characteristics and histological results for patients (n = 73)
Table 2. Characteristics and the VNCa or the CT values for patients (n = 73)
Table 3. Histological results and the VNCa or the CT values for patients (n = 73)
Table 4. Standardized regression coefficients for factors affecting the VNCa CT values around the lesion.
FIGURE CAPTIONS
Fig. 1—The color-coded VNCa reconstruction images and BME.
Fig. 2—The points of measurement of the values of VNCa CT and CT.
10
Fig. 3—The representative images of RC, DC, and OKC.
11
RC: A case of radicular cyst in right molar region of mandible
12
DC: A case of dentigerous cyst in incisal region of maxilla
13
OKC: A case of odontogenic keratocyst in right molar region of mandible
14
Fig. 4a—The VNCa CT values around the lesion in each visual impression of BME
15
0 = no BME, 1 = mild BME, 2 = moderate BME, 3 = marked BME
16
Fig. 4b—The VNCa CT values in normal bone and histological results.
17
Fig. 4c—The CT values in normal bone and histological results
18
Fig. 5a—The VNCa CT values in the lesion and histological results.
19
Fig. 5b—The CT values in the lesion and histological results.
20
Fig. 5c—The VNCa CT values around the lesion and histological results.
21
Fig. 5d—The CT values around the lesion and histological results.
22
Fig. 6—A case of thick cortical bone which is difficulty to measure.
23
Fig. 7—Image of mandibular canal on DECT.
24
25
26
27
FIGURE LEGENDS: None
Table 1. Characteristics and histological results for patients (n = 73)
Variables
RC
DC
OKC
Others
Total
36 (49.3)
24 (32.9)
6 (8.2)
7 (9.6)
73 (100.0)
Male
17 (47.2)
12 (50.0)
5 (83.3)
1 (14.3)
35 (47.9)
Female
19 (52.8)
12 (50.0)
1 (16.7)
6 (85.7)
38 (52.1)
23–86
19–75
18–77
8–72
8–86
56.4 ± 18.6
46.5 ± 15.7
50.5 ± 22.2
33.7 ± 24.7
50.5 ± 19.5
Maxillary
20 (55.6)
1 (4.2)
2 (33.3)
2 (28.6)
25 (34.2)
Mandible
16 (44.4)
23 (95.8)
4 (66.7)
5 (71.4)
48 (65.8)
Anterior region
11 (30.6)
1 (4.2)
3 (50.0)
1 (14.3)
16 (21.9)
Molar region
25 (69.4)
23 (95.8)
3 (50.0)
6 (85.7)
57 (78.1)
1 (2.8)
19 (79.2)
4 (66.7)
7 (100.0)
31 (42.5)
Mild
22 (61.1)
5 (20.8)
2 (33.3)
0 (0)
29 (39.7)
Moderate
10 (27.8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
10 (13.7)
3 (8.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (4.1)
Sample size (n; %)
P value
Sex
0.101
Age
Range
Mean ± SD
0.040
Jawbone
0.029
Site
< 0.001
The impression of BME around the lesion
Indicated no BME
Marked
Subjective Quality Assessment in DECT
images
< 0.001
Excellent
13 (36.1)
11 (45.8)
2 (33.3)
2 (28.6)
28 (38.4)
Good
12 (33.3)
7 (29.2)
2 (33.3)
1 (14.3)
22 (30.1)
Moderate
9 (25.0)
5 (20.8)
1 (16.7)
3 (42.9)
18 (24.7)
Poor
2 (5.6)
1 (4.2)
1 (16.7)
1 (14.3)
5 (6.8)
0.888
Continuous variable: Kruskal-Wallis test, Categorical variables: chi-squared test
Table 2. Characteristics and the VNCa or the CT values for patients (n = 73)
Variables
The VNCa values
in normal
P value
in the lesion
P value
bone
The CT values
around the
P value
lesion
in normal
P value
in the lesion
P value
bone
around the
P value
lesion
Sex (Mean ± SD)
Male
-51.7 ± 31.1
Female
-60.8 ± 16.0
Age (regression coefficients)
0.463
36.4 ± 59.5
0.732
31.2 ± 84.5
-25.4 ± 38.0
0.540
-30.0 ± 39.4
213.9 ± 110.6
0.304
191.4 ± 118.3
58.2 ± 44.9
0.804
63.1 ± 63.9
214.6 ± 113.6
0.193
183.7 ± 115.4
-0.08
0.641
0.616
0.164
0.372
0.110
0.03
0.970
-0.05
0.878
- 0.13
0.855
Maxillary
-66.9 ± 31.2
0.035
15.0 ± 98.3
0.083
-20.0 ± 46.0
0.361
216.4 ± 102.9
0.419
47.5 ± 32.5
0.123
243.8 ± 104.3
0.016
Mandible
-50.8 ± 26.0
Jawbone (Mean ± SD)
43.4 ± 54.6
-31.9 ± 33.8
194.8 ± 120.4
67.7 ± 63.2
175.0 ± 113.9
Site (Mean ± SD)
Anterior region
-65.1 ± 36.5
Molar region
-53.8 ± 26.0
0.298
17.6 ± 123.3
38.2 ± 52.1
0.862
-15.7 ± 54.3
-31.2 ± 32.6
0.361
226.4 ± 106.4
195.4 ± 116.6
0.347
32.8 ± 17.1
68.7 ± 59.7
< 0.001
247.4 ± 102.4
0.063
184.8 ± 115.1
Age: t test, Sex, Jawbone, Site, and Histological results: Kruskal-Wallis test
Table 3. Histological results and the VNCa or the CT values for patients (n = 73)
Variables
The VNCa values
in normal
P value
in the lesion
P value
bone
The CT values
around the
P value
lesion
in normal
P value
in the lesion
P value
bone
around the
P value
lesion
Histological results
(Mean ± SD)
RC
-62.6 ± 27.7
0.375
30.8 ± 38.6
0.012
-6.2 ± 34.3
< 0.001
240.2 ± 108.0
0.027
60.2 ± 42.4
0.272
230.1 ± 119.3
DC
-47.6 ± 28.4
62.6 ± 67.7
-44.4 ± 28.6
162.6 ± 115.2
44.8 ± 20.8
163.5 ± 106.2
OKC
-63.7 ± 19.3
22.3 ± 59.6
-67.3 ± 19.5
146.6 ± 91.6
57.3 ± 63.3
146.7 ± 88.3
Other
-47.3 ± 36.4
-40.8 ± 158.0
-48.1 ± 39.3
190.3 ± 114.5
121.9 ± 125.6
200.7 ± 108.0
0.092
Kruskal-Wallis test
Table 4. Standardised regression coefficients for factors affecting the VNCa CT values around the lesion.
The variables
Regression coefficients
P value
Age
0.025
0.823
Sex
0.076
0.469
Histological results
-0.605
< 0.001
Site
-0.119
0.291
Jawbone
0.179
0.151
Adjusted R2
0.333
...
論文の公開元へ
