Buu-Tai Truong1, Felix H Blankenstein2. 1. Zahnarztpraxis, Ahornstr. 20, 12163, Berlin, Deutschland. buu_tai@hotmail.com. 2. CharitéCentrum 03, Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Straße 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Deutschland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The opposing field stability of highly coercive dental magnets in external magnetic fields of 1.5 and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was investigated. It was further assessed if remagnetizing can reverse the flux density in the magnets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using an adjustable fixture, 20 SmCo magnets were exposed and 6 positions of prosthodontics and epithetics were simulated: P : in the lower jaw parallel to the main field B0, A: in the upper jaw antiparallel to B0 in a straight position, Ad: antiparallel, reclined by 45°, Av: antiparallel, inclined by 45°, G: glabellar region 90° to B0 and M: mastoid region 90° to B0. The effects of exposure in the exterior field directly at the opening for the parallel (Pex), antiparallel (Aex), glabellar (Gex) and mastoid (Mex) positions were also investigated. After each exposure the magnets were remagnetized. The flux density was determined as an equivalent of the adhesive force. RESULTS: With 1.5 T clinically relevant loss of flux density between 7% and 10% occurred only in the angled positions Ad and Av and the external position Aex. In the antiparallel positions A and Aex the strong external field of 3 T caused very high losses of 72% and 33%, respectively. In the inclined and reclined antiparallel positions Ad and Av the magnets lost 96% of their flux density and were almost fully demagnetized. All of the magnets could be fully remagnetized regardless of the degree of damage. CONCLUSION: Highly coercive SmCo magnets can remain in situ during a 1.5 T MRI scan unless the resulting artifacts are diagnostically relevant. Exposure to the 3 T main field in antiparallel position may result in a complete loss of the adhesive force. In this case the magnets should be remagnetized by the manufacturer. Inclination or reclination of the head reinforces the effect of the main field.
PURPOSE: The opposing field stability of highly coercive dental magnets in external magnetic fields of 1.5 and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was investigated. It was further assessed if remagnetizing can reverse the flux density in the magnets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using an adjustable fixture, 20 SmCo magnets were exposed and 6 positions of prosthodontics and epithetics were simulated: P : in the lower jaw parallel to the main field B0, A: in the upper jaw antiparallel to B0 in a straight position, Ad: antiparallel, reclined by 45°, Av: antiparallel, inclined by 45°, G: glabellar region 90° to B0 and M: mastoid region 90° to B0. The effects of exposure in the exterior field directly at the opening for the parallel (Pex), antiparallel (Aex), glabellar (Gex) and mastoid (Mex) positions were also investigated. After each exposure the magnets were remagnetized. The flux density was determined as an equivalent of the adhesive force. RESULTS: With 1.5 T clinically relevant loss of flux density between 7% and 10% occurred only in the angled positions Ad and Av and the external position Aex. In the antiparallel positions A and Aex the strong external field of 3 T caused very high losses of 72% and 33%, respectively. In the inclined and reclined antiparallel positions Ad and Av the magnets lost 96% of their flux density and were almost fully demagnetized. All of the magnets could be fully remagnetized regardless of the degree of damage. CONCLUSION: Highly coercive SmCo magnets can remain in situ during a 1.5 T MRI scan unless the resulting artifacts are diagnostically relevant. Exposure to the 3 T main field in antiparallel position may result in a complete loss of the adhesive force. In this case the magnets should be remagnetized by the manufacturer. Inclination or reclination of the head reinforces the effect of the main field.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coercivity; Intraoral dental magnets; Loss of flux density; MRI; Remagnetization
Authors: W D Baumgartner; S Youssefzadeh; C Czerny; J Hamzavi; O Adunka; W Gstoettner Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2000-06-02 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: James C Lemon; Rene A Brignoni; Stephen M Collard; Jack W Martin; John M Powers; Mark S Chambers Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Marc Regier; Jörn Kemper; Michael G Kaul; Markus Feddersen; Gerhard Adam; Bärbel Kahl-Nieke; Arndt Klocke Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2009-12-04 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Omid Majdani; Martin Leinung; Thomas Rau; Arash Akbarian; Martin Zimmerling; Minoo Lenarz; Thomas Lenarz; Robert Labadie Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: P Ashley Wackym; Michelle A Michel; Robert W Prost; Kristin L Banks; Christina L Runge-Samuelson; Jill B Firszt Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.325