| Home  | About ScienceAsia  | Publication charge  | Advertise with us  | Subscription for printed version  | Contact us  
Editorial Board
Journal Policy
Instructions for Authors
Online submission
Author Login
Reviewer Login
Volume 48 Number 6
Volume 48 Number 5
Volume 48 Number 4
Volume 48 Number 3
Volume 48 Number 2
Volume 48S Number 1
Earlier issues
Volume 45 Number 1 Volume 45 Number 2 Volume 45 Number 3

previous article next article

Research articles

ScienceAsia 45 (2019): 145-153 |doi: 10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2019.45.145

Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging issues of titanium and stainless steel brackets

Igor Linetskiya,*, Jana Starčcukováb, Hana Hubálkovác, Zenon Starčcuk Jrb, Mutlu Özcand

ABSTRACT:     Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a sophisticated diagnostic method of contemporary medicine. This examination in patients with metallic objects is often complicated due to MRI issues. Clinically significant difference in MRI issues of titanium (equilibrium ti, Dentaurum) and stainless steel (Gemini, 3M Unitec replica Rolex Submariner) brackets was studied in a clinical 1.5 T and an experimental 4.7 T MRI scanners. In this in vitro study, the following parameters were assessed: artefacts, magnetic field interaction, and heating. Artefacts were evaluated in spin and gradient echo images using ASTM F2119-07 standard in 1.5 T field. Translational attraction, torque and heating were tested. The titanium bracket for upper lateral incisor produced 2.5?4.3 mm and 4.7?4.9 mm artefacts in spin and gradient echo scans, respectively. The stainless steel bracket for upper lateral incisor caused more than 50 mm distortions in the same sequences. Images of the titanium bracket set were diagnostically acceptable whereas the stainless steel bracket set could not be graded due to the incapability of the MRI scanner to adjust resonance frequency. No clinically relevant translational attraction and no torque were detected for equilibrium ti brackets, while Gemini brackets were strongly attracted by the magnetic field. No clinically significant heating was observed. Noticeable difference in MRI issues of the brackets was observed in artefacts and mobility. Gemini brackets were found unacceptable for MRI.

Download PDF

67 Downloads 998 Views

a Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
b Department of Magnetic Resonance and Cryogenics, Institute of Scientific Instruments, Czech Academy of Sciences, 61264 Brno, Czech Republic
c Department of Prosthodontics, Department of Stomatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
d Dental Materials Unit, Centre for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, University of Z?rich, Z?rich, Switzerland

* Corresponding author, E-mail: igor.linetskiy@gmail.com

Received 20 Feb 2018, Accepted 8 Apr 2019