Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A comparative study of metal artifacts from common metal orthodontic brackets in magnetic resonance imaging

  • Kajan, Zahra Dalili (Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Khademi, Jalil (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Alizadeh, Ahmad (Department of Radiology, Poursina Hospital, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Hemmaty, Yasamin Babaei (Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Roushan, Zahra Atrkar (Department of Biostatistics, Guilan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2015.04.28
  • Accepted : 2015.06.17
  • Published : 2015.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to compare the metal artifacts from common metal orthodontic brackets in magnetic resonance imaging. Material and Methods: A dry mandible with 12 intact premolars was prepared, and was scanned ten times with various types of brackets: American, 3M, Dentaurum, and Masel orthodontic brackets were used, together with either stainless steel (SS) or nickel titanium (NiTi) wires. Subsequently, three different sequences of coronal and axial images were obtained: spin-echo $T_1$-weighted images, fast spin-echo $T_2$-weighted images, and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images. In each sequence, the two sequential axial and coronal images with the largest signal-void area were selected. The largest diameters of the signal voids in the direction of the X-, Y-, and Z-axes were then measured twice. Finally, the mean linear values associated with different orthodontic brackets were analyzed using one-way analysis of variation, and the results were compared using the independent t-test to assess whether the use of SS or NiTi wires had a significant effect on the images. Results: Statistically significant differences were only observed along the Z-axis among the four different brands of orthodontic brackets with SS wires. A statistically significant difference was observed along all axes among the brackets with NiTi wires. A statistically significant difference was found only along the Z-axis between nickel-free and nickel-containing brackets. Conclusion: With respect to all axes, the 3M bracket was associated with smaller signal-void areas. Overall, the 3M and Dentaurum brackets with NiTi wires induced smaller artifacts along all axes than those with SS wires.

Keywords

References

  1. Shafiei F, Honda E, Takahashi H, Sasaki T. Artifacts from dental casting alloys in magnetic resonance imaging. J Dent Res 2003; 82: 602-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910308200806
  2. Idiyatullin D, Corum C, Moeller S, Prasad HS, Garwood M, Nixdorf DR. Dental magnetic resonance imaging: making the invisible visible. J Endod 2011; 37: 745-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.022
  3. Behr M, Fellner C, Bayreuther G, Leibrock A, Held P, Fellner F, et al. MR-imaging of the TMJ: artefacts caused by dental alloys. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1996; 4: 111-5.
  4. Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Koch KM, Gold GE. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 547-55. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7364
  5. Bennett LH, Wang PS, Donahue MJ. Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging from metals. J Appl Phys 1996; 79: 4712-4. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.361649
  6. Bui FM, Bott K, Mintchev MP. A quantitative study of the pixel-shifting, blurring and nonlinear distortions in MRI images caused by the presence of metal implants. J Med Eng Technol 2000; 24: 20-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/030919000294003
  7. Sadowsky PL, Bernreuter W, Lakshminarayanan AV, Kenney P. Orthodontic appliances and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and temporomandibular joint. Angle Orthod 1988; 58: 9-20.
  8. Pusey E, Lufkin RB, Brown RK, Solomon MA, Stark DD, Tarr RW, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts: mechanism and clinical significance. Radiographics 1986; 6: 891-911. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.6.5.3685515
  9. Hopper TA, Vasilic B, Pope JM, Jones CE, Epstein CL, Song HK, et al. Experimental and computational analyses of the effects of slice distortion from a metallic sphere in an MRI phantom. Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 24: 1077-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2006.04.019
  10. Klinke T, Daboul A, Maron J, Gredes T, Puls R, Jaghsi A, et al. Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography caused by dental material. PLoS One 2012; 7: e31766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031766
  11. Hajnal JV, Bryant DJ, Kasuboski L, Pattany PM, De Coene B, Lewis PD, et al. Use of fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) pulse sequences in MRI of the brain. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992; 16: 841-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199211000-00001
  12. Costa AL, Appenzeller S, Yasuda CL, Pereira FR, Zanardi VA, Cendes F. Artifacts in brain magnetic resonance imaging due to metallic dental objects. Med Oral Pathol Oral Cir Bucal 2009; 14: E278-82.
  13. Hasegawa M, Miyata K, Abe Y, Ishigami T. Radiofrequency heating of metallic dental devices during 3.0 T MRI. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120234. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120234
  14. Farahani K, Sinha U, Sinha S, Chiu LC, Lufkin RB. Effect of field strength on susceptibility artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1990; 14: 409-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-6111(90)90040-I
  15. Harris TM, Faridrad MR, Dickson JA. The benefits of aestheic orthodontic brackets in patients requiring multiple MRI scanning. J Orthod 2006; 33: 90-4. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021465
  16. Shellock FG, Kanal E. Aneurysm clips: evaluation of MR imaging artifacts at 1.5 T. Radiology 1998; 209: 563-6. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.209.2.9807590
  17. Okano Y, Yamashiro M, Kaneda T, Kasai K. Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint in patients with orthodontic appliances. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 95: 255-63. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2003.37
  18. Morikuni H, Koseki T, Yotsui Y, Matsumoto N. Metallic artifacts on magnetic resonance images caused by multibracket appliances. J Osaka Dent Univ 2010; 44: 13-21.
  19. Patel A, Bhavra GS, O'Neill JR. MRI scanning and orthodontics. J Orthod 2006; 33: 246-9. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021726
  20. Kemper J, Priest AN, Schulze D, Kahl-Nieke B, Adam G, Klocke A. Orthodontic springs and auxilliary appliance: assessment of magnetic field interactions associated with 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance systems. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 533-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0335-x

Cited by

  1. Magnetic permeability as a predictor of the artefact size caused by orthodontic appliances at 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging vol.21, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1788-1
  2. The effects of a common stainless steel orthodontic bracket on the diagnostic quality of cranial and cervical 3T- MR images: a prospective, case-control study vol.46, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170051
  3. Influence of orthodontic appliance-derived artifacts on 3-T MRI movies vol.19, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-018-0204-6