Literature DB >> 19300375

Artifacts in brain magnetic resonance imaging due to metallic dental objects.

Andre L F Costa1, Simone Appenzeller, Clarissa-Lin Yasuda, Fabrício R Pereira, Verônica A Zanardi, Fernando Cendes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Artifacts caused by metallic objects, such as dental crowns, dental implants and metallic orthodontic appliances, are a common problem in head and neck MRI. The aim of this retrospective study was to identify the main metal dental objects that produce artifacts on brain MRIs. STUDY
DESIGN: Imaged metallic artifacts and their sources were identified. Artifact image plane was rated on a score of 0 or 1 (0--distinguishable for diagnosis and 1--not distinguishable for diagnosis).
RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of the artifacts appearing in images were caused by orthodontic appliances, followed by dental titanium implants (18%) and metallic crowns (4%). Orthodontic appliances obtained the highest scores in all planes.
CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that is difficult to avoid the effect of metallic artifacts in the maxillofacial regions on brain scan. Removing metallic parts of the orthodontic appliance should ensure diagnostically useful quality scans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19300375

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal        ISSN: 1698-4447


  28 in total

1.  Experience with magnetic resonance imaging of human subjects with passive implants and tattoos at 7 T: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Yacine Noureddine; Andreas K Bitz; Mark E Ladd; Markus Thürling; Susanne C Ladd; Gregor Schaefers; Oliver Kraff
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 2.310

2.  Induced magnetic moment in stainless steel components of orthodontic appliances in 1.5 T MRI scanners.

Authors:  Zhiyue J Wang; Nancy K Rollins; Hui Liang; Yong Jong Park
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Predictability of magnetic susceptibility artifacts from metallic orthodontic appliances in magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  F Blankenstein; B T Truong; A Thomas; N Thieme; C Zachriat
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  MRI with intraoral orthodontic appliance-a comparative in vitro and in vivo study of image artefacts at 1.5 T.

Authors:  C Zachriat; P Asbach; K I Blankenstein; I Peroz; F H Blankenstein
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  [Metal objects of the head and neck region in magnetic resonance imaging : Survey among radiologists].

Authors:  Ulrike Kielburg; Felix H Blankenstein
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  [Comparison of the two magnetic resonance deartifact techniques in imaging of different porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns].

Authors:  Wen-Jin Li; Jin-Liang Niu; Li Zhu; Yu Wang; Ying An; Shuang-Yuan Zhang
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2019-02-01

7.  Influence of dental materials on dental MRI.

Authors:  O Tymofiyeva; S Vaegler; K Rottner; J Boldt; A J Hopfgartner; P C Proff; E J Richter; P M Jakob
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 2.419

8.  The effect of 3 T MRI on microleakage of amalgam restorations.

Authors:  S Yilmaz; M Misirlioglu
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 2.419

Review 9.  Should the orthodontic brackets always be removed prior to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)?

Authors:  Arash Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir; Manouchehr Rahmati-Kamel
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2015-09-15

10.  Comparison of contrast-enhanced videofluoroscopy to unenhanced dynamic MRI in minor patients following surgical correction of velopharyngeal dysfunction.

Authors:  C T Arendt; K Eichler; M G Mack; D Leithner; S Zhang; K T Block; Y Berdan; R Sader; J L Wichmann; T Gruber-Rouh; T J Vogl; M C Hoelter
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.