Cargando…

Diagnostic compatibility of various fixed orthodontic retainers for head/neck MRI and dental MRI

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic MRI compatibility of different fixed orthodontic retainers using a high-resolution 3D-sequence optimized for artifact reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary and mandibular retainers made of five different materials were scanned in vitro and in vivo at 3 T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Juerchott, Alexander, Roser, Christoph J., Saleem, Muhammad Abdullah, Nittka, Mathias, Lux, Christopher J., Heiland, Sabine, Bendszus, Martin, Hilgenfeld, Tim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10160193/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36640179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-04861-2
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic MRI compatibility of different fixed orthodontic retainers using a high-resolution 3D-sequence optimized for artifact reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary and mandibular retainers made of five different materials were scanned in vitro and in vivo at 3 T MRI using an MSVAT-SPACE sequence. In vitro, artifact volumes were determined for all maxillary and mandibular retainers (AV(max); AV(mand)). In vivo, two independent observers quantified the extent of artifacts based on the visibility of 124 dental and non-dental landmarks using a five-point rating scale (1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = acceptable, 4 = poor, 5 = not visible). RESULTS: Rectangular-steel retainers caused the largest artifacts (AV(max)/AV(mand): 18,060/15,879 mm(3)) and considerable diagnostic impairment in vivo (mean landmark visibility score ± SD inside/outside the retainer areas: 4.8 ± 0.8/2.9 ± 1.6). Smaller, but diagnostically relevant artifacts were observed for twistflex steel retainers (437/6317 mm(3), 3.1 ± 1.7/1.3 ± 0.7). All retainers made of precious-alloy materials produced only very small artifact volumes (titanium grade 1: 70/46 mm(3), titanium grade 5: 47/35 mm(3), gold: 23/21 mm(3)) without any impact on image quality in vivo (each retainer: visibility scores of 1.0 ± 0.0 for all landmarks inside and outside the retainer areas). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to steel retainers, titanium and gold retainers are fully compatible for both head/neck and dental MRI when using MSVAT-SPACE. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that titanium and gold retainers do not impair the diagnostic quality of head/neck and dental MRI when applying an appropriate artifact-reduction technique. Steel retainers, however, are not suitable for dental MRI and can severely impair image quality in head/neck MRI of the oral cavity.