Orthodontic appliances and MR image artefacts: An exploratory in vitro and in vivo study using 1.5-T and 3-T scanners

In vivo assessment of artefacts in MRI images caused by conventional twistflex and various fixed orthodontic CAD/CAM retainers

PURPOSE

To assess magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) artefacts caused by different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) retainers in comparison with conventional hand bent stainless steel twistflex retainers in vivo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MRI scans (3 Tesla) were performed on a male volunteer with different CAD/CAM retainers (cobalt-chromium, CoCr; nickel-titanium, NiTi; grade 5 titanium, Ti5) and twistflex retainers inserted. A total of 126 landmarks inside and outside the retainer area (RA; from canine to canine) were evaluated by two blinded radiologists using an established five-point visibility scoring (1: excellent, 2: good, 3: moderate, 4: poor, 5: not visible). Friedman and two-tailed Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical analysis (significance level: p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Twistflex retainers had the strongest impact on the visibility of all landmarks inside (4.0 ± 1.5) and outside the RA (1.7 ± 1.2). In contrast, artefacts caused by CAD/CAM retainers were limited to the dental area inside the RA (CoCr: 2.2 ± 1.2) or did not impair MRI-based diagnostics in a clinically relevant way (NiTi: 1.0 ± 0.1; Ti5: 1.4 ± 0.6).

CONCLUSION

The present study on a single test person demonstrates that conventional stainless steel twistflex retainers can severely impair the diagnostic value in head/neck and dental MRI. By contrast, CoCr CAD/CAM retainers can cause artefacts which only slightly impair dental MRI but not head/neck MRI, whereas NiTi and Ti5 CAD/CAM might be fully compatible with both head/neck and dental MRI.

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 MRI using an MSVAT-SPACE sequence. In vitro, artifact volumes were determined for all maxillary and mandibular retainers (AVmax; AVmand). 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 (AVmax/AVmand: 18,060/15,879 mm3) 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 mm3, 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 mm3, titanium grade 5: 47/35 mm3, gold: 23/21 mm3) 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.

Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging caused by dental materials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review was to search in literature in which severity unintended effects are caused by dental materials in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), such as to evaluate whether these artifacts hamper the diagnosis in the head and neck region.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical studies showing the severity of artifacts which dental materials are capable of causing in MRI of head and neck, such as their influence on diagnostic accuracy, were included in this review. The searches were conducted in four electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science), and a manual search was made in the reference lists of papers screened for full-text reading. Risk of bias was assessed using "Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2" (QUADAS-2). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

From 151 studies selected for full-reading, 19 were considered eligible for this review. Artifacts caused by orthodontic appliances were well-documented, and stainless steel brackets were the materials most likely to cause artifacts in MR imaging of head and neck. The literature was scarce for dental implants and restorations. Diagnoses within the oral cavity, but also those of the brain and craniofacial structures, were affected.

CONCLUSION

Artifacts caused by orthodontic appliances may affect the diagnosis in oral cavity and craniofacial structures. Data regarding dental implants and prosthodontics restorations were inconclusive. The severity of artifacts in MRI and their influence on diagnosis is dependent on dental material features, location in the oral cavity, and magnetic resonance parameters.

MRI compatibility of orthodontic brackets and wires: systematic review article

BACKGROUND

Before the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination fixed orthodontic devices, such as brackets and wires, cause challenges not only for the orthodontist but also for the radiologist. Essentially, the MRI-safe scan of the fixed orthodontic tools requires a proper guideline in clinical practice. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine all aspects of MRI-safe scan, including artifact, thermal, and debonding effects, to identify any existing gaps in knowledge in this regard and develop an evidence-based protocol.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement was used in this study. The clinical question in "PIO" format was: "Does MRI examination influence the temperature of the orthodontic devices, the size of artifacts, and the debonding force in patients who have fixed orthodontic bracket and/or wire?" The search process was carried out in PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. The search resulted in 1310 articles. After selection according to the eligibility criteria, 18 studies were analyzed by two reviewers. The risk of bias was determined using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool.

RESULTS

Out of the eligible 18 studies, 10 articles examined the heating effect, 6 were about the debonding effect, and 11 measured the size of artifact regarding brackets and wires. Considering the quality assessment, the overall levels of evidence were high and medium. The published studies showed that heating and debonding effects during MRI exposure were not hazardous for patients. As some wires revealed higher temperature changes, it is suggested to remove the wire or insert a spacer between the appliances and the oral mucosa. Based on the material, ceramic and plastic brackets caused no relevant artifact and were MRI-safe. Stainless steel brackets and wires resulted in susceptibility artifacts in the orofacial region and could cause distortion in the frontal lobe, orbits, and pituitary gland. The retainer wires showed no relevant artifact.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the thermal and debonding effects of the fixed orthodontic brackets and wires were irrelevant or resoluble; however, the size of the artifacts was clinically relevant and determined most significantly the feasibility of fixed brackets and wires in MRI examination.

The Temporomandibular Joint in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

Patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) often have involvement of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) during their disease course. Active arthritis of the TMJ remains difficult to assess. Clinical signs and symptoms alone are unreliable, and active TMJ arthritis needs confirmation by gadolinium-enhanced MRI. In recent years, changes in treatment approach have occurred. This article discusses the latest evidence on diagnosis and treatment of JIA-associated TMJ arthritis.