Zhiyue J Wang1, Nancy K Rollins1, Hui Liang2, Yong Jong Park3. 1. Department of Radiology, Children's Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75235 and Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75390. 2. Baylor College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas 75246. 3. Division of Orthodontics, Children's Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75235.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Most orthodontic appliances are made of stainless steel materials and induce severe magnetic susceptibility artifacts in brain MRI. In an effort for correcting these artifacts, it is important to know the value of induced magnetic moments in all parts of orthodontic appliances. In this study, the induced magnetic moment of stainless steel orthodontic brackets, molar bands, and arch-wires from several vendors is measured. METHODS: Individual stainless steel brackets, molar bands, and short segments of arch-wire were positioned in the center of spherical flask filled with water through a thin plastic rod. The induced magnetic moment at 1.5 T was determined by fitting the B0 map to the z-component of the magnetic dipole field using a computer routine. RESULTS: The induced magnetic moment at 1.5 T was dominated by the longitudinal component mz, with a small contribution from the transverse components. The mz was insensitive to the orientation of the metal parts. The orthodontic brackets collectively dominated the magnetic dipole moment in orthodontic appliances. In brackets from six vendors, the total induced mz from 20 brackets for nonmolar teeth ranged from 0.108 to 0.158 (median 0.122) A ⋅ m(2). The mz in eight molar bands with bracket attachment from two vendors ranged from 0.0004 to 0.0166 (median 0.0035) A ⋅ m(2). Several full length arch wires had induced magnetic moment in the range of 0.006-0.025 (median 0.015) A ⋅ m(2). CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic brackets collectively contributed most to the total magnetic moment. Different types of brackets, molar bands, and arch wires all exhibit substantial variability in the induced magnetic moment.
PURPOSE: Most orthodontic appliances are made of stainless steel materials and induce severe magnetic susceptibility artifacts in brain MRI. In an effort for correcting these artifacts, it is important to know the value of induced magnetic moments in all parts of orthodontic appliances. In this study, the induced magnetic moment of stainless steel orthodontic brackets, molar bands, and arch-wires from several vendors is measured. METHODS: Individual stainless steel brackets, molar bands, and short segments of arch-wire were positioned in the center of spherical flask filled with water through a thin plastic rod. The induced magnetic moment at 1.5 T was determined by fitting the B0 map to the z-component of the magnetic dipole field using a computer routine. RESULTS: The induced magnetic moment at 1.5 T was dominated by the longitudinal component mz, with a small contribution from the transverse components. The mz was insensitive to the orientation of the metal parts. The orthodontic brackets collectively dominated the magnetic dipole moment in orthodontic appliances. In brackets from six vendors, the total induced mz from 20 brackets for nonmolar teeth ranged from 0.108 to 0.158 (median 0.122) A ⋅ m(2). The mz in eight molar bands with bracket attachment from two vendors ranged from 0.0004 to 0.0166 (median 0.0035) A ⋅ m(2). Several full length arch wires had induced magnetic moment in the range of 0.006-0.025 (median 0.015) A ⋅ m(2). CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic brackets collectively contributed most to the total magnetic moment. Different types of brackets, molar bands, and arch wires all exhibit substantial variability in the induced magnetic moment.
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
Authors: P de Graaf; P J W Pouwels; F Rodjan; A C Moll; S M Imhof; D L Knol; E Sanchez; P van der Valk; J A Castelijns Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: P F New; B R Rosen; T J Brady; F S Buonanno; J P Kistler; C T Burt; W S Hinshaw; J H Newhouse; G M Pohost; J M Taveras Journal: Radiology Date: 1983-04 Impact factor: 11.105