OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential influence of standard dental materials on dental MRI (dMRI) by estimating the magnetic susceptibility with the help of the MRI-based geometric distortion method and to classify the materials from the standpoint of dMRI. METHODS: A series of standard dental materials was studied on a 1.5 T MRI system using spin echo and gradient echo pulse sequences and their magnetic susceptibility was estimated using the geometric method. Measurements on samples of dental materials were supported by in vivo examples obtained in dedicated dMRI procedures. RESULTS: The tested materials showed a range of distortion degrees. The following materials were classified as fully compatible materials that can be present even in the tooth of interest: the resin-based sealer AH Plus(®) (Dentsply, Maillefer, Germany), glass ionomer cement, gutta-percha, zirconium dioxide and composites from one of the tested manufacturers. Interestingly, composites provided by the other manufacturer caused relatively strong distortions and were therefore classified as compatible I, along with amalgam, gold alloy, gold-ceramic crowns, titanium alloy and NiTi orthodontic wires. Materials, the magnetic susceptibility of which differed from that of water by more than 200 ppm, were classified as non-compatible materials that should not be present in the patient's mouth for any dMRI applications. They included stainless steel orthodontic appliances and CoCr. CONCLUSIONS: A classification of the materials that complies with the standard grouping of materials according to their magnetic susceptibility was proposed and adopted for the purposes of dMRI. The proposed classification can serve as a guideline in future dMRI research.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential influence of standard dental materials on dental MRI (dMRI) by estimating the magnetic susceptibility with the help of the MRI-based geometric distortion method and to classify the materials from the standpoint of dMRI. METHODS: A series of standard dental materials was studied on a 1.5 T MRI system using spin echo and gradient echo pulse sequences and their magnetic susceptibility was estimated using the geometric method. Measurements on samples of dental materials were supported by in vivo examples obtained in dedicated dMRI procedures. RESULTS: The tested materials showed a range of distortion degrees. The following materials were classified as fully compatible materials that can be present even in the tooth of interest: the resin-based sealer AH Plus(®) (Dentsply, Maillefer, Germany), glass ionomer cement, gutta-percha, zirconium dioxide and composites from one of the tested manufacturers. Interestingly, composites provided by the other manufacturer caused relatively strong distortions and were therefore classified as compatible I, along with amalgam, gold alloy, gold-ceramic crowns, titanium alloy and NiTi orthodontic wires. Materials, the magnetic susceptibility of which differed from that of water by more than 200 ppm, were classified as non-compatible materials that should not be present in the patient's mouth for any dMRI applications. They included stainless steel orthodontic appliances and CoCr. CONCLUSIONS: A classification of the materials that complies with the standard grouping of materials according to their magnetic susceptibility was proposed and adopted for the purposes of dMRI. The proposed classification can serve as a guideline in future dMRI research.
Authors: Georg Eggers; Marcus Rieker; Bodo Kress; Jochen Fiebach; Hartmut Dickhaus; Stefan Hassfeld Journal: MAGMA Date: 2005-03-22 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Andre L F Costa; Simone Appenzeller; Clarissa-Lin Yasuda; Fabrício R Pereira; Verônica A Zanardi; Fernando Cendes Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2009-06-01
Authors: Alexander Heil; Franz Sebastian Schwindling; Constanze Jelinek; Manuel Fischer; Marcel Prager; Eduardo Lazo Gonzalez; Martin Bendszus; Sabine Heiland; Tim Hilgenfeld Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Jakob Kreutner; Andreas Hopfgartner; Daniel Weber; Julian Boldt; Kurt Rottner; Ernst Richter; Peter Michael Jakob; Daniel Haddad Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Andreas Detterbeck; Michael Hofmeister; Elisabeth Hofmann; Daniel Haddad; Daniel Weber; Astrid Hölzing; Simon Zabler; Matthias Schmid; Karl-Heinz Hiller; Peter Jakob; Jens Engel; Jochen Hiller; Ursula Hirschfelder Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Barbara Kirnbauer; Norbert Jakse; Petra Rugani; Michael Schwaiger; Marton Magyar Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Silwan Mendes; Carin A Rinne; Julia C Schmidt; Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt; Clemens Walter Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Julian Boldt; Kurt Rottner; Marc Schmitter; Andreas Hopfgartner; Peter Jakob; Ernst-Jürgen Richter; Olga Tymofiyeva Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 3.573