Tim Hilgenfeld1, Marcel Prager2,3, Alexander Heil2, Franz Sebastian Schwindling4, Mathias Nittka5, David Grodzki5, Peter Rammelsberg4, Martin Bendszus2, Sabine Heiland2,3. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. tim.hilgenfeld@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Section of Experimental Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Prosthodontics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dental MRI is often impaired by artefacts due to metallic dental materials. Several sequences were developed to reduce susceptibility artefacts. Here, we evaluated a set of sequences for artefact reduction for dental MRI for the first time. METHODS: Artefact volume, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and image quality were assessed on a 3-T MRI for pointwise encoding time reduction with radial acquisition (PETRA), multiple-slab acquisition with view angle tilting gradient, based on a sampling perfection with application-optimised contrasts using different flip angle evolution (SPACE) sequence (MSVAT-SPACE), slice-encoding for metal-artefact correction (SEMAC) and compared to a standard SPACE and a standard turbo-spin-echo (TSE) sequence. Field-of-view and acquisition times were chosen to enable in vivo application. Two implant-supported prostheses were tested (porcelain fused to metal non-precious alloy and monolithic zirconia). RESULTS: Smallest artefact was measured for TSE sequences with no difference between the standard TSE and the SEMAC. MSVAT-SPACE reduced artefacts about 56% compared to the standard SPACE. Effect of the PETRA was dependent on sample used. Image quality and SNR were comparable for all sequences except PETRA, which yielded poor results. CONCLUSION: There is no benefit in terms of artefact reduction for SEMAC compared to standard TSE. Usage of MSVAT-SPACE is advantageous since artefacts are reduced and higher resolution is achieved. KEY POINTS: • SEMAC is not superior to TSE in terms of artefact reduction. • MSVAT-SPACE reduces susceptibility artefacts while maintaining comparable image quality. • PETRA reduces susceptibility artefacts depending on material but offers poor image quality.
OBJECTIVES: Dental MRI is often impaired by artefacts due to metallic dental materials. Several sequences were developed to reduce susceptibility artefacts. Here, we evaluated a set of sequences for artefact reduction for dental MRI for the first time. METHODS: Artefact volume, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and image quality were assessed on a 3-T MRI for pointwise encoding time reduction with radial acquisition (PETRA), multiple-slab acquisition with view angle tilting gradient, based on a sampling perfection with application-optimised contrasts using different flip angle evolution (SPACE) sequence (MSVAT-SPACE), slice-encoding for metal-artefact correction (SEMAC) and compared to a standard SPACE and a standard turbo-spin-echo (TSE) sequence. Field-of-view and acquisition times were chosen to enable in vivo application. Two implant-supported prostheses were tested (porcelain fused to metal non-precious alloy and monolithic zirconia). RESULTS: Smallest artefact was measured for TSE sequences with no difference between the standard TSE and the SEMAC. MSVAT-SPACE reduced artefacts about 56% compared to the standard SPACE. Effect of the PETRA was dependent on sample used. Image quality and SNR were comparable for all sequences except PETRA, which yielded poor results. CONCLUSION: There is no benefit in terms of artefact reduction for SEMAC compared to standard TSE. Usage of MSVAT-SPACE is advantageous since artefacts are reduced and higher resolution is achieved. KEY POINTS: • SEMAC is not superior to TSE in terms of artefact reduction. • MSVAT-SPACE reduces susceptibility artefacts while maintaining comparable image quality. • PETRA reduces susceptibility artefacts depending on material but offers poor image quality.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artefacts; Dental implants; Magnetic resonance imaging; Metals; Teeth
Authors: Bodo Kress; Yvonne Buhl; Stefan Hähnel; Georg Eggers; Klaus Sartor; Marc Schmitter Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2006-09-07
Authors: Olaf Dietrich; José G Raya; Scott B Reeder; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alexander Juerchott; Christian Freudlsperger; Dorothea Weber; Johann M E Jende; Muhammad Abdullah Saleem; Sebastian Zingler; Christopher J Lux; Martin Bendszus; Sabine Heiland; Tim Hilgenfeld Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Mousa Zidan; Franz S Schwindling; Alexander Juerchott; Johannes Mente; Holger Gehrig; Mathias Nittka; Zahra Hosseini; Johann M E Jende; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Tim Hilgenfeld Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 3.606
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: Cesar de Cesar Netto; Lucas F Fonseca; Benjamin Fritz; Steven E Stern; Esther Raithel; Mathias Nittka; Lew C Schon; Jan Fritz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alexander Juerchott; Muhammad Abdullah Saleem; Tim Hilgenfeld; Christian Freudlsperger; Sebastian Zingler; Christopher J Lux; Martin Bendszus; Sabine Heiland Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alexander Juerchott; Thorsten Pfefferle; Christa Flechtenmacher; Johannes Mente; Martin Bendszus; Sabine Heiland; Tim Hilgenfeld Journal: Int J Oral Sci Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 6.344