Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Radiological Physics and Technology
Published in: Radiological Physics and Technology 3/2017

01-09-2017

Magnetization and demagnetization of magnetic dental attachments in a 3-T MRI system

Authors: Norio Hayashi, Akio Ogura, Toshio Tsuchihashi, Daisuke Takahashi, Tsuyoshi Matsuda, Shinya Seino, Tsukasa Doi

Published in: Radiological Physics and Technology | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnetization and demagnetization of magnetic dental attachments in a 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. A high-field-strength (3.0 T) MRI scanner (Achieva 3.0 T, Philips, Amsterdam, Netherlands) was used. Magnetic flux leakage was measured using a gaussmeter. To evaluate the magnetization and demagnetization of the magnetic assemblies and keepers caused by the moving in and out of the MRI scanner, the magnetic force of the attachments was measured before and after the table was moved in and out. Two settings were used wherein the magnetic assemblies and keepers were positioned on the table at angles of 0° or 90° with respect to the magnetic flux of the static magnetic field. The movement of the table was repeated 15 times. In addition, the retentive force of the magnetic dental attachments was measured after magnetic field exposure. The magnetic force of the magnetic attachments positioned at 0° decreased significantly after moving in and out of the MRI scanner (p < 0.05). In contrast, the magnetic force of the magnetic attachments positioned at 90° was stable after the movement of the table. The magnetic force of the keepers placed at both 0° and 90° was slightly increased after the movement of the table. At 0°, the retentive force of the magnet-keeper combinations decreased when the magnetic assembly was exposed to the strong magnetic flux of the MRI scanner. Therefore, the removal of all removable magnetic dentures is recommended before an MRI examination.
Literature
1.
Hasegawa M, Umekawa Y, Nagai E, Ishigami T. Retentive force and magnetic flux leakage of magnetic attachment in various keeper and magnetic assembly combinations. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;105(4):266–71.CrossRefPubMed
2.
S-I Masumi, Nagatomi K, Miyake S, Toyoda S. Removable magnetic dental attachment that permits magnetic resonance imaging. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(4):698–701.CrossRef
3.
Miyata K, Hasegawa M, Abe Y, Tabuchi T, Namiki T, Ishigami T. Radiofrequency heating and magnetically induced displacement of dental magnetic attachments during 3.0 T MRI. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(8):668–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Willinek WA, Schild HH. Clinical advantages of 3.0 T MRI over 1.5 T. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65(1):2–14.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Shellock FG, Rothman B, Sarti D. Heating of the scrotum by high-field-strength MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 1990;154(6):1229–32.CrossRef
6.
Shellock FG, Curtis JS. MR imaging and biomedical implants, materials, and devices: an updated review. Radiology. 1991;180(2):541–50.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Shellock FG, Hatfield M, Simon BJ, Block S, Wamboldt J, Starewicz PM, et al. Implantable spinal fusion stimulator: assessment of MR safety and artifacts. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(2):214–23.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Shellock FG. Metallic neurosurgical implants: evaluation of magnetic field interactions, heating, and artifacts at 1.5-Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;14(3):295–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Shellock FG. Biomedical implants and devices: assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(6):721–32.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Shellock FG. Magnetic resonance safety update 2002: implants and devices. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(5):485–96.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Shellock FG, Tkach JA, Ruggieri PM, Masaryk TJ. Cardiac pacemakers, ICDs, and loop recorder: evaluation of translational attraction using conventional (“long-bore”) and “short-bore” 1.5- and 3.0-Tesla MR systems. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2003;5(2):387–97.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Shellock FG, Crues JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology. 2004;232(3):635–52.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Shellock FG. Comments on MR heating tests of critical implants. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(5):1182–5.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Shellock FG, Woods TO, Crues JV 3rd. MR labeling information for implants and devices: explanation of terminology. Radiology. 2009;253(1):26–30.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Shellock FG, Meepos LN, Stapleton MR, Valencerina S. In vitro magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of ossicular implants at 3 T. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(5):871–7.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Shellock FG, Spinazzi A. MRI safety update 2008: part 2, screening patients for MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(4):1140–9.CrossRef
17.
Hasegawa M, Miyata K, Abe Y, Ishii T, Ishigami T, Ohtani K, et al. 3-T MRI safety assessments of magnetic dental attachments and castable magnetic alloys. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(6):20150011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Omatsu M, Obata T, Minowa K, Yokosawa K, Inagaki E, Ishizaka K, et al. Magnetic displacement force and torque on dental keepers in the static magnetic field of an MR scanner. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40(6):1481–6.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Takahashi D, Ogura A, Hayashi N, Seino S, Kawai R, Matsuda T, et al. The safety of MR conditional cochlear implant at 1.5 tesla magnetic resonance imaging system. Jpn J Radiol Technol. 2016;72(8):674–80.CrossRef
20.
Gegauff AG, Laurell KA, Thavendrarajah A, Rosenstiel SF. A potential MRI hazard: forces on dental magnet keepers. J Oral Rehabil. 1990;17(5):403–10.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Beau A, Bossard D, Gebeile-Chauty S. Magnetic resonance imaging artefacts and fixed orthodontic attachments. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37(1):105–10.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Oriso K, Kobayashi T, Sasaki M, Uwano I, Kihara H, Kondo H. Impact of the static and radiofrequency magnetic fields produced by a 7 T MR imager on metallic dental materials. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2016;15(1):26–33.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Magnetization and demagnetization of magnetic dental attachments in a 3-T MRI system
Authors
Norio Hayashi
Akio Ogura
Toshio Tsuchihashi
Daisuke Takahashi
Tsuyoshi Matsuda
Shinya Seino
Tsukasa Doi
Publication date
01-09-2017
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Radiological Physics and Technology / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1865-0333
Electronic ISSN: 1865-0341
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-017-0399-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Radiological Physics and Technology 3/2017 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Development of a method of automated extraction of biological fingerprints from chest radiographs as preprocessing of patient recognition and identification

OriginalPaper

Comparison of grayscale and color-scale renderings of digital medical images for diagnostic interpretation

OriginalPaper

137Cs transmission imaging and segmented attenuation corrections in a small animal PET scanner

OriginalPaper

Evaluation of six-point modified dixon and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for fat quantification: a fat–water–iron phantom study

OriginalPaper

Effective luminance deterioration of medical liquid crystal displays in clinical use

OriginalPaper

Evaluation of administered dose using portal images in craniospinal irradiation of pediatric patients