Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic permeability as a predictor of the artefact size caused by orthodontic appliances at 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Objectives

Artefacts caused by orthodontic attachments limit the diagnostic value and lead to removal of these appliances before magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic permeability can predict the artefact size. There is no standardised approach to determine the permeability of such attachments. The aim was to establish a reliable approach to determine artefact size caused by orthodontic attachments at 1.5 T MRI.

Materials and methods

Artefact radii of 21 attachments were determined applying two prevalent sequences of the head and neck region (turbo spin echo and gradient echo). The instrument Ferromaster (Stefan Mayer Instruments, Dinslaken) is approved for permeability measurements of objects with a minimum size (d = 20 mm, h = 5 mm). Eleven small test specimens of known permeability between 1.003 and 1.431 were produced. They are slightly larger than the orthodontic attachments. Their artefacts were measured and cross tabulated against the permeability. The resulting curve was used to compare the orthodontic attachments with the test bodies.

Results

Steel caused a wide range of artefact size of 10–74 mm subject to their permeability. Titanium, cobalt-chromium and ceramic materials produced artefact radii up to 20 mm. Measurement of artefacts of the test bodies revealed an interrelationship according to a root function. The artefact size of all brackets was below that root function.

Conclusions

The permeability can be reliably assessed by conventional measurement devices and the artefact size can be predicted. The radiologist is able to decide whether or not the orthodontic attachments should be removed.

Clinical relevance

This study clarifies whether an orthodontic appliance must be removed before taking an MRI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Okano Y, Yamashiro M, Kaneda T, et al. (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint in patients with orthodontic appliances. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 95:255–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kemper J, Klocke A, Kahl-Nieke B, Adam G (2005) Kieferorthopädische Brackets in der Hochfeld Magnetresonanz-Tomographie: Experimentelle Beurteilung magnetischer Anziehungs- und Rotationskräfte bei 3 Tesla. RoFo 177:1691–1698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Patel A, Bhavra GS, O’Neill JR (2006) MRI scanning and orthodontics. J Orthod 33:246–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hatch J, Deahl TS, Matteson SR (2014) CAT of the month: remove metallic orthodontic appliances prior to MRI imaging. Tex Dent J 131:26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kajan ZD, Khademi J, Alizadeh A, Hemmaty YB, Roushan ZA (2015) A comparative study of metal artifacts from common metal orthodontic brackets in magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging Sci Dent 45:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blankenstein FH, Truong BT, Zachriat C, et al. (2015) About the predictability of susceptibility artifacts caused by metallic orthodontic appliances. J Orofac Orthop 76:14–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yassi K, Ziane F, Bardinet E, et al. (2007) Évaluation des risques d’échauffement et de déplacement des appareils orthodontiques en imagerie par résonance ma-gnétique. J Radiol 88:263–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Regier M, Kemper J, Kaul MG, Feddersen M, Adam G, Kahl-Nieke B, Klocke A (2009) Radiofrequency-induced heating near fixed orthodontic appliances in high field MRI systems at 3.0 Tesla. J Orofac Orthop 70:485–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gorgülü S, Ayyildiz S, Kamburoglu K, Gokçe S, Ozen T (2014) Effect of orthodontic brackets and different wires on radiofrequency heating and magnetic field interactions during 3-T MRI. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20130356

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wezel J, Kooij BJ, Webb AG (2014) Assessing the MR combatibility of dental retainer wires at 7 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 72:1191–1198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klocke A, Kahl-Nieke B, Adam G, Kemper J (2006) Magnetic forces on orthodontic wires in high field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3 Tesla. J Orofac Orthop 67:424–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elison JM, Leggitt VL, Thomson M, et al. (2008) Influence of common orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic quality of cranial magnetic resonance images. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 134:563–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beau A, Bossard D, Gebeile-Chauty S (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging artefacts and fixed orthodontic attachments. Eur J Orthod 37:105–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wylezinska M, Pinkstone M, Hay N, et al. (2015) Impact of orthodontic appliances on the quality of craniofacial anatomical magnetic resonance imaging and real-time speech imaging. Eur J Orthod. doi:10.1093/ejo/cju103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zachriat C, Asbach P, Blankenstein KI, Peroz I, Blankenstein FH (2015) Magnetic Resonance imaging with intraoral orthodontic appliance—a comparative in vitro and in vivo study of image artefacts at 1.5 Tesla. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20140416

    Google Scholar 

  16. Herold T, Caro WC, Heers G, Perlick L, Grifka J, Feuerbach S, Nitz W, Lenhart M (2004) Influence of sequence type on the extent of the susceptibility artifact in MRI—a shoulder specimen study after suture anchor repair. Fortschr Rontgenstr (RoFo) 176(9):1296–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blankenstein FH, Truong BT, Thomas A, Schröder RJ, Naumann M (2006) Signal loss in magnetic resonance imaging caused by intraoral anchored dental magnetic materials. Rofo 178:787–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bennett LH, Wang PS, Donahue MJ (1996) Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging frim metals. J Appl Phys 79:4712–4714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fache JS, Price C, Hawbolt EB, Li DK (1987) MR imaging artifacts produced by dental materials. Am J Neuroradiol 8:837–840

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nitz WR, Runge VM, Schmeets SH (2011) Praxiskurs MRT. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, New York, p. 201

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany

    Felix H. Blankenstein, Florian Beuer & Christine Zachriat

  2. Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Patrick Asbach

  3. Ingenieurbüro Johannes Glienke, Abendrotweg 19, 12307, Berlin, Germany

    Johannes Glienke

  4. Fa. Stefan Mayer Instruments, Wallstr. 7, 46535, Dinslaken, Germany

    Stefan Mayer

Authors
  1. Felix H. Blankenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Asbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florian Beuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johannes Glienke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefan Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christine Zachriat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix H. Blankenstein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests. Dr. rer. nat. Stefan Mayer, co-author of this manuscript and owner of the Stefan Mayer Instruments Company in Dinslaken, undertook the permeability measurements of all samples and produced the carbonyl-iron test specimens. No financial or material means were provided for this research collaboration. The artefact measurements and image evaluations were conducted separately from the permeability measurement and were done exclusively in the Berlin study group.

Funding

The 21 orthodontic attachments have been provided without cost by five producers (Table 2).

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

It is not necessary, because no individual participants were included.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blankenstein, F.H., Asbach, P., Beuer, F. et al. Magnetic permeability as a predictor of the artefact size caused by orthodontic appliances at 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Oral Invest 21, 281–289 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1788-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1788-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation