Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Orthodontic appliances and MR image artefacts: An exploratory in vitro and in vivo study using 1.5-T and 3-T scanners

  • Sonesson, Mikael (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmo University) ;
  • Al-Qabandi, Fahad (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmo University) ;
  • Mansson, Sven (Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Skane University Hospital) ;
  • Abdulraheem, Salem (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmo University) ;
  • Bondemark, Lars (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmo University) ;
  • Hellen-Halme, Kristina (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Malmo University)
  • Received : 2020.07.21
  • Accepted : 2020.10.14
  • Published : 2021.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the artefacts of 12 fixed orthodontic appliances in magnetic resonance images obtained using 1.5-T and 3-T scanners, and to evaluate different imaging sequences designed to suppress metal artefacts. Materials and Methods: In vitro, study casts of 1 adult with normal occlusion were used. Twelve orthodontic appliances were attached to the study casts and scanned. Turbo spin echo (TSE), TSE with high readout bandwidth, and TSE with view angle tilting and slice encoding for metal artefact correction were used to suppress metal artefacts. Artefacts were measured. In vivo, 6 appliances were scanned: 1) conventional stainless-steel brackets; 2) nickelfree brackets; 3) titanium brackets; 4) a Herbst appliance; 5) a fixed retainer; and 6) a rapid maxillary expander. The maxilla, mandible, nasopharynx, tongue, temporomandibular joints, and cranial base/eye globes were assessed. Scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 indicated no artefacts and minor, moderate, and major artefacts, respectively. Results: In vitro, titanium brackets and the fixed retainer created minor artefacts. In vivo, titanium brackets caused minor artefacts. Conventional stainless-steel and nickel free brackets, the fixed retainer, and the rapid maxillary expander caused major artefacts in the maxilla and mandible. Conventional stainless-steel and nickel-free brackets caused major artefacts in the eye globe (3-T). TSE with high readout bandwidth reduced image artefacts in both scanners. Conclusion: Titanium brackets, the Herbst appliance, and the fixed retainer caused minor artefacts in images of neurocranial structures(1.5-T and 3-T) when using TSE with high readout bandwidth.

Keywords

References

  1. Cassetta M, Pranno N, Pompa V, Barchetti F, Pompa G. High resolution 3-T MR imaging in the evaluation of the trigeminal nerve course. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2014; 18: 257-64.
  2. Larheim TA. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the clinical diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint. Cells Tissues Organs 2005; 180: 6-21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000086194
  3. Mazza D, Marini M, Impara L, Cassetta M, Scarpato P, Barchetti F, et al. Anatomic examination of the upper head of the lateral pterygoid muscle using magnetic resonance imaging and clinical data. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20: 1508-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181b09c32
  4. Fujita M, Matsuzaki H, Yanagi Y, Hara M, Katase N, Hisatomi M, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI for odontogenic tumours. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120265. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120265
  5. Kato H, Kawaguchi M, Ando T, Aoki M, Kuze B, Matsuo M. CT and MR imaging findings of non-neoplastic cystic lesions of the parotid gland. Jpn J Radiol 2019; 37: 627-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-019-00858-8
  6. Niraj LK, Patthi B, Singla A, Gupta R, Ali I, Dhama K, et al. MRI in dentistry - a future towards radiation free imaging - systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res 2016; 10: ZE14-9.
  7. 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
  8. Beuf O, Lissac M, Cremillieux Y, Briguet A. Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging disturbances and the magnetic susceptibility of dental materials. Dent Mater 1994; 10: 265-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90072-8
  9. Fache JS, Price C, Hawbolt EB, Li DK. MR imaging artifacts produced by dental materials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1987; 8: 837-40.
  10. 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
  11. Dimberg L, Lennartsson B, Arnrup K, Bondemark L. Prevalence and change of malocclusions from primary to early permanent dentition: a longitudinal study. Angle Orthod 2015; 85: 728-34. https://doi.org/10.2319/080414-542.1
  12. Thilander B, Myrberg N. The prevalence of malocclusion in Swedish schoolchildren. Scand J Dent Res 1973; 81: 12-21.
  13. Starcukova J, Starcuk Z Jr, Hubalkova H, Linetskiy I. Magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity of metallic dental materials and their impact on MR imaging artifacts. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 715-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.07.002
  14. Wylezinska M, Pinkstone M, Hay N, Scott AD, Birch MJ, Miquel ME. Impact of orthodontic appliances on the quality of craniofacial anatomical magnetic resonance imaging and realtime speech imaging. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37: 610-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju103
  15. Beau A, Bossard D, Gebeile-Chauty S. Magnetic resonance imaging artefacts and fixed orthodontic attachments. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37: 105-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju020
  16. Zachrisson BU, Skogan O, Hoymyhr S. Enamel cracks in debonded, debanded, and orthodontically untreated teeth. Am J Orthod 1980; 77: 307-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90084-6
  17. Diedrich P. Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: a study with the scanning electron microscope. Am J Orthod 1981; 79: 500-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(81)90462-0
  18. Cho ZH, Kim DJ, Kim YK. Total inhomogeneity correction including chemical shifts and susceptibility by view angle tilting. Med Phys 1988; 15: 7-11. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.596162
  19. Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA. SEMAC: slice encoding for metal artifact correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62: 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.21967
  20. Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ, Janzen DL, MacKay AL, Xiang QS, et al. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics 2000; 20: 699-712. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.20.3.g00ma10699
  21. Jungmann PM, Ganter C, Schaeffeler CJ, Bauer JS, Baum T, Meier R, et al. View-angle tilting and slice-encoding metal artifact correction for artefact reduction in MRI: experimental sequence optimization for orthopaedic tumor endoprostheses and clinical application. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0124922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124922
  22. Olsrud J, Latt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Bjorkman-Burtscher IM. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength(1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: 433-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20391
  23. Zhylich D, Krishnan P, Muthusami P, Rayner T, Shroff M, Doria A, et al. Effects of orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic quality of magnetic resonance images of the head. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151: 484-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.07.020
  24. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  25. Elison JM, Leggitt VL, Thomson M, Oyoyo U, Wycliffe ND. Influence of common orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic quality of cranial magnetic resonance images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 563-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.038
  26. 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
  27. Kretzschmar M, Nardo L, Han MM, Heilmeier U, Sam C, Joseph GB, et al. Metal artefact suppression at 3 T MRI: comparison of MAVRIC-SL with conventional fast spin echo sequences in patients with hip joint arthroplasty. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 2403-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3628-0
  28. Gutierrez LB, Do BH, Gold GE, Hargreaves BA, Koch KM, Worters PW, et al. MR imaging near metallic implants using MAVRIC SL: initial clinical experience at 3T. Acad Radiol 2015; 22: 370-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.010
  29. Livas C, Delli K. Subjective and objective perception of orthodontic treatment need: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35: 347-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr142

Cited by

  1. The Temporomandibular Joint in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis vol.47, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2021.06.004