OBJECTIVES: Metallic compounds present in the oral and maxillofacial regions (OMRs) cause large artefacts during MR scanning. We quantitatively assessed these artefacts embedded within a phantom according to standards set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). METHODS: Seven metallic dental materials (each of which was a 10-mm3 cube embedded within a phantom) were scanned [i.e. aluminium (Al), silver alloy (Ag), type IV gold alloy (Au), gold-palladium-silver alloy (Au-Pd-Ag), titanium (Ti), nickel-chromium alloy (NC) and cobalt-chromium alloy (CC)] and compared with a reference image. Sequences included gradient echo (GRE), fast spin echo (FSE), gradient recalled acquisition in steady state (GRASS), a spoiled GRASS (SPGR), a fast SPGR (FSPGR), fast imaging employing steady state (FIESTA) and echo planar imaging (EPI; axial/sagittal planes). Artefact areas were determined according to the ASTM-F2119 standard, and artefact volumes were assessed using OsiriX MD software (Pixmeo, Geneva, Switzerland). RESULTS: Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests were used for statistical comparisons. For most materials, scanning sequences eliciting artefact volumes in the following (ascending) order FSE-T1/FSE-T2 < FSPGR/SPGR < GRASS/GRE < FIESTA < EPI. For all scanning sequences, artefact volumes containing Au, Al, Ag and Au-Pd-Ag were significantly smaller than other materials (in which artefact volume size increased, respectively, from Ti < NC < CC). The artefact-specific shape (elicited by the cubic sample) depended on the scanning plane (i.e. a circular pattern for the axial plane and a "clover-like" pattern for the sagittal plane). CONCLUSIONS: The availability of standardized information on artefact size and configuration during MRI will enhance diagnosis when faced with metallic compounds in the OMR.
OBJECTIVES: Metallic compounds present in the oral and maxillofacial regions (OMRs) cause large artefacts during MR scanning. We quantitatively assessed these artefacts embedded within a phantom according to standards set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). METHODS: Seven metallic dental materials (each of which was a 10-mm3 cube embedded within a phantom) were scanned [i.e. aluminium (Al), silver alloy (Ag), type IV gold alloy (Au), gold-palladium-silver alloy (Au-Pd-Ag), titanium (Ti), nickel-chromium alloy (NC) and cobalt-chromium alloy (CC)] and compared with a reference image. Sequences included gradient echo (GRE), fast spin echo (FSE), gradient recalled acquisition in steady state (GRASS), a spoiled GRASS (SPGR), a fast SPGR (FSPGR), fast imaging employing steady state (FIESTA) and echo planar imaging (EPI; axial/sagittal planes). Artefact areas were determined according to the ASTM-F2119 standard, and artefact volumes were assessed using OsiriX MD software (Pixmeo, Geneva, Switzerland). RESULTS: Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests were used for statistical comparisons. For most materials, scanning sequences eliciting artefact volumes in the following (ascending) order FSE-T1/FSE-T2 < FSPGR/SPGR < GRASS/GRE < FIESTA < EPI. For all scanning sequences, artefact volumes containing Au, Al, Ag and Au-Pd-Ag were significantly smaller than other materials (in which artefact volume size increased, respectively, from Ti < NC < CC). The artefact-specific shape (elicited by the cubic sample) depended on the scanning plane (i.e. a circular pattern for the axial plane and a "clover-like" pattern for the sagittal plane). CONCLUSIONS: The availability of standardized information on artefact size and configuration during MRI will enhance diagnosis when faced with metallic compounds in the OMR.
Entities:
Keywords:
artefacts; dental materials; head and neck imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; radiology
Authors: Katrine Mølgaard Johannsen; João Marcus de Carvalho E Silva Fuglsig; Brian Hansen; Ann Wenzel; Rubens Spin-Neto Journal: Oral Radiol Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 1.882
Authors: Sabah Falek; Rajesh Regmi; Joel Herault; Melanie Dore; Anthony Vela; Pauline Dutheil; Cyril Moignier; Pierre-Yves Marcy; Julien Drouet; Arnaud Beddok; Noah E Letwin; Joel Epstein; Upendra Parvathaneni; Juliette Thariat Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.359