Phantom imaging performance and initial in vivo feasibility of an anatomy-conforming dentomaxillofacial prototype coil for dental MRI

Abstract Background As magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) emerges as a next-generation diagnostic tool in dentistry, there is a growing demand for dedicated hardware optimized for the maxillofacial region. This study evaluated the phantom imaging performance and initial in vivo feasibility of an anatomy-conforming 11-channel dentomaxillofacial (DMF) prototype receive coil compared with commercial reference coils. Methods An 11-channel extraoral DMF prototype receive coil was configured with 8.5-cm-diameter flexible loop elements arranged to conform to the facial contours. Phantom imaging performance was evaluated on a 3.0-T MRI system using a standardized loading phantom and compared with a 16-channel small flex coil and a 21-channel head and neck coil. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was measured at 15 standardized surface and deep regions of interest using separately acquired noise-only images and magnitude-image correction factors. Parallel imaging performance and interchannel noise correlation were additionally evaluated using phantom acquisitions. Initial in vivo feasibility was also ​assessed in one healthy adult volunteer by comparing the DMF coil with the head and neck coil using fat-suppressed T2-weighted, T1-weighted, and Zero-TE imaging. Image conspicuity of representative dentomaxillofacial structures and coil-related tolerability were evaluated. Results The DMF coil showed the highest median phantom SNR (339.84), followed by the small flex coil (267.84) and the head and neck coil (178.40). In the surface region analysis, the DMF coil demonstrated significantly higher SNR than the head and neck coil ( P < 0.05). The maximum g-factors were 1.12, 3.44, and 6.59 at acceleration factors of R = 2, 3, and 4, respectively, with generally low interchannel noise correlation. In the healthy volunteer, the DMF coil provided higher mean image-quality scores than the head and neck coil for fat-suppressed T2-weighted imaging (2.78 vs. 2.11), T1-weighted imaging (2.89 vs. 2.67), and Zero-TE imaging (2.50 vs. 2.00). No coil-specific breathing difficulty, pressure discomfort, or heat sensation was reported. Lower signal intensity and greater visible noise were observed in the posterior head region with the DMF coil. Conclusions The prototype 11-channel DMF coil showed higher phantom SNR than the commercial head and neck coil, particularly in superficial dentomaxillofacial regions, and demonstrated initial in vivo feasibility in one healthy volunteer. Further technical characterization and larger clinical studies are required before its clinical performance can be established.