Literature DB >> 31214744

[Alteration of flux density of highly coercive SmCo magnets used in prosthodontics and epithetics in 1.5 T and 3 T MRI].

Buu-Tai Truong1, Felix H Blankenstein2.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coercivity; Intraoral dental magnets; Loss of flux density; MRI; Remagnetization

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31214744     DOI: 10.1007/s00117-019-0563-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiologe        ISSN: 0033-832X            Impact factor:   0.635


  9 in total

1.  [Clinical utilization of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with cochlear implants].

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

2.  In vitro effect of microwave irradiation on the retentive force of magnets.

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

3.  Breakaway forces of flat and domed surfaced Magfit implant magnet attachments.

Authors:  V Chopra; B J Smith; H W Preiskel; R M Palmer; R Curtis
Journal:  Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent       Date:  2007-03

4.  Magnetic displacement force and torque on dental keepers in the static magnetic field of an MR scanner.

Authors:  Mika Omatsu; Takayuki Obata; Kazuyuki Minowa; Koichi Yokosawa; Eri Inagaki; Kinya Ishizaka; Koichi Shibayama; Toru Yamamoto
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Radiofrequency-induced heating near fixed orthodontic appliances in high field MRI systems at 3.0 Tesla.

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

6.  [Influence on flux density of intraoral dental magnets during 1.5 and 3.0 tesla MRI].

Authors:  F H Blankenstein; B Truong; A Thomas; A Boeckler; I Peroz
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2011-05-30

7.  [Signal loss in magnetic resonance imaging caused by intraoral anchored dental magnetic materials].

Authors:  F H Blankenstein; B Truong; A Thomas; R J Schröder; M Naumann
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2006-08

8.  Demagnetization of cochlear implants and temperature changes in 3.0T MRI environment.

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

9.  Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on internal magnet strength in Med-El Combi 40+ cochlear implants.

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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.