Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Influence of receiver bandwidth on MRI artifacts caused by orthodontic brackets composed of different alloys

  • Abdala-Junior, Reinaldo (Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo) ;
  • No-Cortes, Juliana (Department of Dental Surgery, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Malta) ;
  • Arita, Emiko Saito (Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo) ;
  • Ackerman, Jerome L. (Department of Radiology, Martinos Center of Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital) ;
  • da Silva, Renan Lucio Berbel (Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo) ;
  • Kim, Jun Ho (Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo) ;
  • Cortes, Arthur Rodriguez Gonzalez (Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo)
  • Received : 2021.04.23
  • Accepted : 2021.05.14
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the role of bandwidth on the area of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) artifacts caused by orthodontic appliances composed of different alloys, using different pulse sequences in 1.5 T and 3.0 T magnetic fields. Materials and Methods: Different phantoms containing orthodontic brackets (ceramic, ceramic bracket with a stainless-steel slot, and stainless steel) were immersed in agar gel and imaged in 1.5 T and 3.0 T MRI scanners. Pairs of gradient-echo (GE), spin-echo (SE), and ultrashort echo time (UTE) pulse sequences were used differing in bandwidth only. The area of artifacts from orthodontic devices was automatically estimated from pixel value thresholds within a region of interest (ROI). Mean values for similar pulse sequences differing in bandwidth were compared at 1.5 T and 3.0 T using analysis of variance. Results: The comparison of groups revealed a significant inverse association between bandwidth values and artifact areas of the stainless-steel bracket and the self-ligating ceramic bracket with a stainless-steel slot(P<0.05). The areas of artifacts from the ceramic bracket were the smallest, but were not reduced significantly in pulse sequences with higher bandwidth values(P<0.05). Significant differences were also observed between 1.5 T and 3.0 T MRI using SE and UTE, but not using GE 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional pulse sequences. Conclusion: Higher receiver bandwidth might be indicated to prevent artifacts from orthodontic appliances in 1.5 T and 3.0 T MRI using SE and UTE pulse sequences.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was carried out at the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital, using resources provided by the Center for Functional Neuroimaging Technologies, P41EB015896, a P41 Biotechnology Resource Grant supported by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. Aguiar MF, Marques AP, Carvalho AC, Cavalcanti MG. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging compared with computed tomography for implant planning. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 362-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01490.x
  2. Bracher AK, Hofmann C, Bornstedt A, Hell E, Janke F, Ulrici J, et al. Ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI for the assessment of caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120321. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120321
  3. Nagamatsu-Sakaguchi C, Maekawa K, Ono T, Yanagi Y, Minakuchi H, Miyawaki S, et al. Test-retest reliability of MRI-based disk position diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 101-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0476-9
  4. Senel FC, Duran S, Icten O, Izbudak I, Cizmeci F. Assessment of the sinus lift operation by magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 44: 511-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2006.02.004
  5. Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 1996; 23: 815-50. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597854
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Hubalkova H, Hora K, Seidl Z, Krasensky J. Dental materials and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2002; 10: 125-30.
  9. Cortes AR, Abdala-Junior R, Weber M, Arita ES, Ackerman JL. Influence of pulse sequence parameters at 1.5 T and 3.0 T on MRI artefacts produced by metal-ceramic restorations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20150136. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150136
  10. 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
  11. 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 materials. PLoS One 2012; 7: e31766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031766
  12. 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
  13. Ludeke KM, Roschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1985; 3: 329-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0730-725X(85)90397-2
  14. Toms AP, Smith-Bateman C, Malcolm PN, Cahir J, Graves M. Optimization of metal artefact reduction (MAR) sequences for MRI of total hip prostheses. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 447-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.12.014
  15. Hilgenfeld T, Prager M, Heil A, Schwindling FS, Nittka M, Grodzki D, et al. PETRA, MSVAT-SPACE and SEMAC sequences for metal artefact reduction in dental MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 5104-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4901-1
  16. Reichert IL, Robson MD, Gatehouse PD, He T, Chappell KE, Holmes J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of cortical bone with ultrashort TE pulse sequences. Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23: 611-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2005.02.017
  17. Hovener JB, Zwick S, Leupold J, Eisenbeiβ AK, Scheifele C, Schellenberger F, et al. Dental MRI: imaging of soft and solid components without ionizing radiation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 36: 841-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23712