Felix H Blankenstein1, Patrick Asbach2, Florian Beuer3, Johannes Glienke4, Stefan Mayer5, Christine Zachriat3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany. felix.blankenstein@charite.de. 2. Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany. 4. Ingenieurbüro Johannes Glienke, Abendrotweg 19, 12307, Berlin, Germany. 5. Fa. Stefan Mayer Instruments, Wallstr. 7, 46535, Dinslaken, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Artefacts caused by orthodontic attachments limit the diagnostic value and lead to removal of these appliances before magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic permeability can predict the artefact size. There is no standardised approach to determine the permeability of such attachments. The aim was to establish a reliable approach to determine artefact size caused by orthodontic attachments at 1.5 T MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artefact radii of 21 attachments were determined applying two prevalent sequences of the head and neck region (turbo spin echo and gradient echo). The instrument Ferromaster (Stefan Mayer Instruments, Dinslaken) is approved for permeability measurements of objects with a minimum size (d = 20 mm, h = 5 mm). Eleven small test specimens of known permeability between 1.003 and 1.431 were produced. They are slightly larger than the orthodontic attachments. Their artefacts were measured and cross tabulated against the permeability. The resulting curve was used to compare the orthodontic attachments with the test bodies. RESULTS: Steel caused a wide range of artefact size of 10-74 mm subject to their permeability. Titanium, cobalt-chromium and ceramic materials produced artefact radii up to 20 mm. Measurement of artefacts of the test bodies revealed an interrelationship according to a root function. The artefact size of all brackets was below that root function. CONCLUSIONS: The permeability can be reliably assessed by conventional measurement devices and the artefact size can be predicted. The radiologist is able to decide whether or not the orthodontic attachments should be removed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study clarifies whether an orthodontic appliance must be removed before taking an MRI.
OBJECTIVES: Artefacts caused by orthodontic attachments limit the diagnostic value and lead to removal of these appliances before magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic permeability can predict the artefact size. There is no standardised approach to determine the permeability of such attachments. The aim was to establish a reliable approach to determine artefact size caused by orthodontic attachments at 1.5 T MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artefact radii of 21 attachments were determined applying two prevalent sequences of the head and neck region (turbo spin echo and gradient echo). The instrument Ferromaster (Stefan Mayer Instruments, Dinslaken) is approved for permeability measurements of objects with a minimum size (d = 20 mm, h = 5 mm). Eleven small test specimens of known permeability between 1.003 and 1.431 were produced. They are slightly larger than the orthodontic attachments. Their artefacts were measured and cross tabulated against the permeability. The resulting curve was used to compare the orthodontic attachments with the test bodies. RESULTS: Steel caused a wide range of artefact size of 10-74 mm subject to their permeability. Titanium, cobalt-chromium and ceramic materials produced artefact radii up to 20 mm. Measurement of artefacts of the test bodies revealed an interrelationship according to a root function. The artefact size of all brackets was below that root function. CONCLUSIONS: The permeability can be reliably assessed by conventional measurement devices and the artefact size can be predicted. The radiologist is able to decide whether or not the orthodontic attachments should be removed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study clarifies whether an orthodontic appliance must be removed before taking an MRI.
Authors: J Matthew Elison; V Leroy Leggitt; Matthew Thomson; Udo Oyoyo; N Dan Wycliffe Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Lauren Bohner; Pedro Tortamano; Norbert Meier; Felix Gremse; Johannes Kleinheinz; Marcel Hanisch Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Christoph Roser; Tim Hilgenfeld; Sinan Sen; Tobias Badrow; Sebastian Zingler; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Christopher J Lux; Alexander Juerchott Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 3.573