Search

Aim Metal dental products lack precautionary statements regarding MR compatibility due to an exemption in the labelling obligation. Hence, it is difficult for radiologists to decide whether to remove fixed metal objects in patients prior to MRI. A solution could be the direct determination of the magnetic permeability (µr) as a decisive material-related predictor of artifact formation and other interactions. Thus, the applicability of an industrially used measurement device as a screening instrument and the relevance of the manufacturer’s application restrictions in vitro and in vivo were tested. Methods Precision and trueness were tested using self-made test objects with different dimensions and different permeability. To clarify whether the measurement results are affected by the remanence (BR) induced in the objects, 28 brackets of different materials were exposed to a weak and a strong external magnetic field and the magnetic flux density before and after these exposures was compared. The clinical test was performed on a volunteer with an orthodontic appliance experimentally composed of brackets with different levels of magnetic permeability (µr). Validity and intra- and interrater reliability were calculated using two rater groups consisting of four dentists and four medical-technical radiology assistants (MTRA), respectively. Results With coefficients of variation below 0.14%, precision was excellent regardless of object surface and size. Trueness was high on objects with µr ≤ 1.002, and decreased with increasing µr, for which size-dependent correction factors were calculated. Intra- and interrater reliability and validity were excellent and independent of professional intraoral manipulation experience. Conclusions The permeability measurement allows for a valid and reliable determination of the magnetizability of intraoral metal objects. When used as a screening tool to detect nonartifact-causing objects, no correction factor needs to be calculated. For the first time, it offers radiologists a decision support for the selective removal of only the highly permeable components of the multiband apparatus.

We investigated artefacts caused from orthodontic appliances at 1.5-T MRI of the head and neck region and whether the image quality can be improved utilizing the artefact-minimizing sequence WARP.In vitro tests were performed by phantom measurements of different orthodontic devices applying different types of MR sequences [echoplanar imaging (EPI), turbo spin echo (TSE) and TSE-WARP, gradient echo (GRE)]. Two independent readers determined after calibration the level of artefacts. Subsequently, the interobserver agreement was calculated. The measurement of artefacts was based on the American Society for Testing Materials Standard F 2119-07. For in vivo imaging, one test person was scanned with an inserted multibracket appliance. The level of artefacts for 27 target regions was evaluated.In vitro: ceramic brackets and ferromagnetic steel brackets produced artefact radii up to 1.12 and 7.40 cm, respectively. WARP reduced these artefacts by an average of 32.7%. The Bland-Altman-Plot indicated that maximum measurement differences of 3 mm have to be expected with two calibrated observers. In vivo: the EPI sequence for brain imaging was not analysable. The TSE sequence of the brain did not demonstrate artefacts except for the nasal cavity. Conversely, the TSE sequence of the cervical spine revealed severe artefacts in the midface region. The GRE sequence appeared to be more susceptible to artefacts than did the TSE sequence.In vitro measurements allow an estimation of the in vivo artefact size. Orthodontic appliances may often remain intraorally when performing MRI. WARP showed a more significant effect in vitro than in vivo.