Magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity of metallic dental materials and their impact on MR imaging artifacts

Starčuková, Jana; Starčuk, Zenon; Hubálková, Hana; Linetskiy, Igor

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2007.07.002

Cited by 75 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…cylinders and spheres). 11,12 By contrast with the aforementioned methodology, the present study assessed multiple pulse sequences to analyse nickel-chromium samples with clinical shapes of metal-ceramic restorations. The rationale of testing clinical samples of the same composition with multiple MRI scans was to identify pulse sequence parameters that could be optimized in order to minimize the artefacts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the dental materials causing significant MRI artefacts are metal-based materials such as orthodontic brackets and metal-ceramic restorations. 8,12 On the other hand, materials such as ceramics and polymers have low magnetic susceptibility, are compatible with MRI scanning and generally produce minimal or no artefacts. 11,12 Based on this fact, ceramic cylinders were used as reference specimens of the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, six reference samples of dental ceramics (Noritake Cerabien CZR dentin A2 lot OE903; Noritake Kizai Co. Ltd, Nagoya, Japan) 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height were included, since ceramics have very low magnetic susceptibility and do not yield significant artefacts on MRI. 12 Phantom A rectangular plastic container measuring 350 3 160 3 40 mm was used to house the phantom of this study. Briefly, a first layer of hot 1% agar in water was poured into the plastic container as a base, filling half the container volume.…”

Section: Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9,10 The same metal alloys were also assessed at 1.5 T in two dentistry studies. 11,12 However, the dentistry studies used individual samples with special shapes (i.e. cylindrical and spherical) that do not occur in actual dental restorations and tested different commercial brands of materials using only a few different gradient echo [gradient-recalled echo (GRE)] and spin echo (SE) pulse sequences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Influence of pulse sequence parameters at 1.5 T and 3.0 T on MRI artefacts produced by metal–ceramic restorations

Cortes

Abdala-Júnior

Weber

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Susceptibility artefacts from dental materials may compromise MRI diagnosis. However, little is known regarding MRI artefacts of dental material samples with the clinical shapes used in dentistry. The present phantom study aims to clarify how pulse sequences and sequence parameters affect MRI artefacts caused by metal-ceramic restorations. Methods: A phantom consisting of nickel-chromium metal-ceramic restorations (i.e. dental crowns and fixed bridges) and cylindrical reference specimens immersed in agar gel was imaged in 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI scanners. Gradient echo (GRE), spin echo (SE) and ultrashort echo time (UTE) pulse sequences were used. The artefact area in each image was automatically calculated from the pixel values within a region of interest. Mean values for similar pulse sequences differing in one parameter at a time were compared. A comparison between mean artefact area at 1.5 and 3.0 T, and from GRE and SE was also carried out. In addition, a parametric correlation between echo time (TE) and artefact area was performed. Results: A significant correlation was found between TE and artefact area in GRE images. Higher receiver bandwidth significantly reduced artefact area in SE images. UTE images yielded the smallest artefact area at 1.5 T. In addition, a significant difference in mean artefact area was found between images at 1.5 and 3.0 T field strengths (p 5 0.028) and between images from GRE and SE pulse sequences (p 5 0.005). Conclusions: It is possible to compensate the effect of higher field strength on MRI artefacts by setting optimized pulse sequences for scanning patients with metal-ceramic restorations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Influence of pulse sequence parameters at 1.5 T and 3.0 T on MRI artefacts produced by metal–ceramic restorations

Cortes

Abdala-Júnior

Weber

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies in the cranio-maxillofacial literature have compared the artifact size on CT and MRI of different implants made of CoCr, NiCr, titanium, and stainless steel. 11,18 Overall, titanium was found to be su- 8 performed an in vitro study to compare the amount of artifact produced by different implants in a cadaveric porcine model. Images were evaluated by a radiologist and an orthopedic surgeon to assess artifact size and diagnostic quality, respectively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging artifact with cobalt-chromium versus titanium spinal instrumentation

Ahmad¹,

Sidani

Fourzali

et al. 2013

SPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Cobalt-chromium alloy (CoCr) rods haves some preferred biomechanical properties over titanium rods for spinal fixation. The use of CoCr rods in spinal fusion is relatively new, and there is no study in the existing world literature assessing the artifact caused by these rods in patients undergoing postoperative MRI. The purpose of this study is to compare the amount of imaging artifact caused by these implants and to assess its impact on the visualization of neighboring neural structures. Methods This study investigated MR images in patients who underwent implantation of thoracolumbar instrumentation using 5.5-mm-diameter CoCr rods between November 2009 and March 2011 and images obtained in a comparison group of patients who had 5.5-mm titanium rods implanted during the same time period. Axial measurements of the artifact created by the rods between the screw heads were compared between the groups. Two blinded board-certified radiologists performed the measurements independently. They scored the visualization of the spinal canal using a subjective scoring system of 1–3, with 1 representing very good visualization and 2 and 3 representing reduced (good or suboptimal, respectively) visualization as a result of rod-related artifact. All measurements and scores were independently provided for T1-weighted and T2-weighted fast spin echo sequences (1.5-T magnet, 5-mm slice thickness). Results A total of 40 levels from the CoCr group (6 patients) and 30 levels from the titanium group (9 patients) were included in the analysis. Visualization of the canal at all levels was rated a score of 1 (very good) by both evaluators for both the CoCr and titanium groups. The average artifact on T1-weighted images measured 11.8 ± 1.8 mm for the CoCr group and 8.5 ± 1.2 mm for the titanium group (p < 0.01). The corresponding measurements on T2-weighted images were 11.0 ± 2.3 mm and 8.3 ± 1.7 mm (p < 0.01), respectively. In a mixed regression model, the mean artifact measurement for the CoCr group was, on average, 3.5 mm larger than for the control group. There was no significant difference between the measurements of the 2 evaluators (p = 0.99). Conclusions The artifact caused by CoCr rods is approximately 3.5 mm larger than that caused by titanium rods on axial T1- and T2-weighted MRI. However, artifact from either CoCr or titanium was not found to interfere with the evaluation of the spinal canal and surrounding neural elements.

show abstract

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MacDonald¹,

Ddrrcr²,

Fdsrcps³

et al. 2011

Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity of metallic dental materials and their impact on MR imaging artifacts

Cited by 75 publications

References 17 publications

Influence of pulse sequence parameters at 1.5 T and 3.0 T on MRI artefacts produced by metal–ceramic restorations

Influence of pulse sequence parameters at 1.5 T and 3.0 T on MRI artefacts produced by metal–ceramic restorations

Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging artifact with cobalt-chromium versus titanium spinal instrumentation

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About