F H Blankenstein1, B Truong, A Thomas, A Boeckler, I Peroz.
Abstract
PURPOSE: When using dental duo-magnet systems, a mini-magnet remains in the jaw after removal of the prosthesis. In some cases, implant-borne magnets may be removed, whereas tooth-borne magnets are irreversibly fixed on a natural tooth root. The goal of this paper is to identify the impacts of the duration and orientation of exposure on these magnets in a 1.5 or 3 Tesla MRI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this study, 30 SmCo and 60 NdFeB magnets were used. During the first experiment, they were exposed with free orientation for 64 minutes. During the second experiment, the magnets were fixed in position and exposed at 1.5 and 3 Tesla while aligned in a parallel or antiparallel direction.
RESULTS: While the duration of exposure in MRI is irrelevant, the orientation is not. The coercive field strength of these NdFeB and SmCo alloys is not sufficient to reliably withstand demagnetization in a 1.5 or 3 T MRI when aligned in an antiparallel direction. At 1.5 T neodymium magnets were reduced to approx. 34 % and samarium magnets to approx. 92 % of their initial values. At 3 T all magnets were reversed.
CONCLUSION: As a precaution, the worst-case scenario, i. e. an antiparallel orientation, should be assumed when using a duo-magnet system. If an MRI can be postponed, the general dentist should remove implant-borne magnets. If there is a vital indication, irreversible damage to the magnets is acceptable in consultation with the patient since the replacement costs are irrelevant given the underlying disease. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
PURPOSE: When using dental duo-magnet systems, a mini-magnet remains in the jaw after removal of the prosthesis. In some cases, implant-borne magnets may be removed, whereas tooth-borne magnets are irreversibly fixed on a natural tooth root. The goal of this paper is to identify the impacts of the duration and orientation of exposure on these magnets in a 1.5 or 3 Tesla MRI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this study, 30 SmCo and 60 NdFeB magnets were used. During the first experiment, they were exposed with free orientation for 64 minutes. During the second experiment, the magnets were fixed in position and exposed at 1.5 and 3 Tesla while aligned in a parallel or antiparallel direction.
RESULTS: While the duration of exposure in MRI is irrelevant, the orientation is not. The coercive field strength of these NdFeB and SmCo alloys is not sufficient to reliably withstand demagnetization in a 1.5 or 3 T MRI when aligned in an antiparallel direction. At 1.5 T neodymium magnets were reduced to approx. 34 % and samarium magnets to approx. 92 % of their initial values. At 3 T all magnets were reversed.
CONCLUSION: As a precaution, the worst-case scenario, i. e. an antiparallel orientation, should be assumed when using a duo-magnet system. If an MRI can be postponed, the general dentist should remove implant-borne magnets. If there is a vital indication, irreversible damage to the magnets is acceptable in consultation with the patient since the replacement costs are irrelevant given the underlying disease. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Entities:
Mesh：
Substances：
Year: 2011
PMID： 21626468 DOI： 10.1055/s-0031-1273424
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rofo ISSN： 1438-9010