1. 2D and 3D MOCART scoring systems assessed by 9
2D and 3D MOCART scoring systems assessed by 9.4 T high-field MRI correlate with elementary and complex histological scoring systems in a translational model of osteochondral repair 
L. Goebel, D. Zurakowski, A. Müller, D. Pape, M. Cucchiarini, H. Madry 
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages (October 2014)
DOI: /j.joca
Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions

2. Fig. 1
Example of coronar and sagittal reconstructions of an osteochondral sample in a 9.4 T high-field MRI. Isometric voxel size (edge length = 120 μm) allows to virtually reconstruct MRI evaluations in any plane in space without losing steric information. Asterisks indicate the integration zone of the repair tissue with the adjacent normal articular cartilage, in the sagittal plane crosses demarcate artifacts caused by sample preparation, arrowheads point at drill holes. Scale bar, 4 mm.
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage  , DOI: ( /j.joca )
Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions

3. Fig. 2
Examples of osteochondral repair in corresponding high-field MRI images and histological sections. Example of good (a, b) and poor (c, d) osteochondral repair shown in representative coronar high-field MRI images (a, c) and corresponding coronar histological sections (b, d) of the same samples. The first osteochondral specimen illustrating good repair (a, b) is characterized by a complete filling of the defect, good integration at the margins, and a congruent articular surface. There is some degree of subchondral bone plate remodeling. In contrast, the second osteochondral specimen illustrating poor repair (c, d) shows no filling of the defect, lack of a congruent articular surface, and disturbance of the subchondral bone plate together with a large subchondral cyst. Asterisks indicate the integration zone of the repair tissue with the adjacent normal articular cartilage, arrowheads show the dimension of the subchondral cyst. Scale bar, 4 mm.
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage  , DOI: ( /j.joca )
Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions

4. Fig. 3
Bland–Altman plot of 2D and 3D MOCART scoring systems for coronal (a) and sagittal (b) reconstructions. The average of the two scoring systems total points are plotted on the x-axis (2D + 3D MOCART systems total points/2) and the difference between the two systems on the y-axis (3D − 2D MOCART systems total points). For coronal reconstructions (a), the mean difference was 15 points and the 95% CI was between 9 and 21 points higher with the modified 3D MOCART scoring system. Limits of agreement are denoted as dashed lines. Correlation analysis between the average of the 2D and 3D measurements vs the difference was not significant (P = 0.970). For sagittal reconstructions (b), mean difference was 16 points with 95% CI between 8 and 24 points higher for the modified 3D MOCART scoring system. Here, correlation analysis was also not significant (P = 0.490).
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage  , DOI: ( /j.joca )
Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions

5. Fig. 4
Inverse relationship of the 3D MOCART scoring system with histological scoring systems. Coronal (solid line) and sagittal (dashed line) 3D MOCART total scores were plotted against the Sellers (a) and Wakitani scores (b). A similar relationship in predicting histological scores were found for both, coronal and sagittal, reconstructions.
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage  , DOI: ( /j.joca )
Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions