Clinical oral investigations · 2016
Magnetic permeability as a predictor of the artefact size caused by orthodontic appliances at 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Blankenstein Felix H, Asbach Patrick, Beuer Florian, Glienke Johannes, Mayer Stefan, Zachriat Christine
Аннотация
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.
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.