Farklı Dental Kron Materyalleri Tarafından Üretilen Artefaktların Ultrashort Echo Time Manyetik Rezonans Görüntüleme Üzerinde Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Baş ve boyun bölgesinde metalik nesneler bulunan birçok hastada manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRG) gerekebilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRG'de farklı dental kron materyalleri tarafından üretilen artefaktları değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kobalt-krom (Co-Cr) ve zirkonyum (Zr) kron ve sabit köprüler dahil edildi ve agar jele gömüldü. 1.5T MRG ile UTE sekansı yapıldı ve bu materyallerin ürettiği artefakt alanı, ilgilenilen bölge içinde ölçüldü. Ortalama artefakt alanları kaydedildi. Bulgular: Co-Cr ve Zr tarafından üretilen ortalama artefakt alanı sırasıyla 140.055 mm2 ve 102.349 mm2 idi. Zr materyali metal restorasyondan daha az artefakt üretti. Element sayısı arttıkça artefakt miktarının da arttığı belirtildi. Sonuçlar: Co-Cr metal restorasyonlar UTE MRI'da Zr materyalden daha güçlü etkiye sahiptir. UTE sekansı, farklı materyallerden duyarlılık artefaktlarının değerlendirilmesinde yararlıdır. Farklı materyallerin ürettiği artefakt miktarının bilinmesi, daha az artefakt oluşumuna neden olan yeni materyallerin üretilmesine veya mevcut materyallerin özelliklerinin iyileştirilmesine yardımcı olacaktır.

Keywords

• Artefaktlar
• Dental materyaller
• Dental restorasyon
• Manyetik rezonans görüntüleme
• UTE

Evaluation of Artifacts Produced by Different Dental Crown Materials on Ultrashort Echo Time Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

Objectives: Many patients with metallic objects in the head and neck region may require magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The aim of this study was to assess the artifacts produced by different dental crown materials on ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI. Materials and Methods: Cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) and zirconia (Zr) crown and fixed bridges were included and embedded in agar gel. UTE sequence by 1.5T MRI was performed and the artifact area produced by these materials, were measured within the region of interest (ROI). Mean artifact areas were recorded. Results: Mean artifact area produced by Co-Cr and Zr was 140.055 mm2 and 102.349 mm2, respectively. Zr material produced less artifacts than metal restoration. It was stated that the amount of artifact increased as the number of elements increased. Conclusions: Co-Cr metal restorations have stronger effect than Zr material on UTE MRI. UTE sequence is useful in evaluating susceptibility artifacts from different materials. Knowing the amount of artifact produced by different materials will help to produce new materials that cause less artifact formation or to improve the properties of existing materials.

Keywords

• Artifacts
• Dental materials
• Dental restoration
• Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• UTE

References

1. Abdala-Junior R, No-Cortes J, Arita ES, Ackerman JL, da Silva RLB, Kim JH, et al. Influence of receiver bandwidth on MRI artifacts caused by orthodontic brackets composed of different alloys. Imaging. Sci. Dent. 2021;51(4):413-419.
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(6):20120321.
3. Bui FM, Bott K, Mintchev MP. A quantitative study of the pixelshifting, blurring and nonlinear distortions inMRI images caused by the presence of metal implants. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 2000;24: 20–27.
4. Chang EY, Du J, Chung CB. UTE imaging in the musculoskeletal system. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2015;41:870–883.
5. Cortes ARG, 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.
6. Czervionke LF, Daniels DL, Wehrli FW, Mark LP, Hendrix LE, Strandt JA, et al. Magnetic susceptibility artifacts in gradient-recalled echo MR imaging. AJNR. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1988;9:1149-1155.
7. Du J, Bydder GM. Qualitative and quantitative ultrashort‐TE MRI of cortical bone. NMR. Biomed. 2013;26:489–506.
8. Fache JS, Price C, Hawbolt EB, Li DK. MR imaging artifacts produced by dental materials. AJNR. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1987;8:837-840.

9. Gao X, Wan Q, Gao Q. Susceptibility artifacts induced by crowns of different materials with prepared teeth and titanium implants in magnetic resonance imaging. Sci. Rep. 2022;12(1):428.
10. Gray CF, Redpath TW, Smith FW, Staff RT. Advanced imaging: magnetic resonance imaging in implant dentistry. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2003;14:18-27.
11. Hilgenfeld T, Prager M, Schwindling FS, Heil A, Kuchenbecker S, Rammelsberg P, et al. Artefacts of implant-supported single crowns - Impact of material composition on artefact volume on dental MRI. Eur. J. Oral. Implantol. 2016;9(3):301-308.
12. Hövener 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(4):841-846.
13. Hubálková H, Hora K, Seidl Z, Krásenský J. Dental materials and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 2002;10(3):125-130.
14. 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(2):e31766.
15. Manhard MK, Nyman JS, Does MD. Advances in imaging approaches to fracture risk evaluation. Transl. Res. 2017;181:1–14.
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(5):611-618.
17. Robson MD, Gatehouse PD, Bydder M, Bydder GM. Magnetic resonance: an introduction to ultrashort TE (UTE) imaging. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2003;27:825–846.
18. Saeed F, Muhammad N, Khan AS, Sharif F, Rahim A, Ahmad P, et al. Prosthodontics dental materials: From conventional to unconventional. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. Mater. Biol. Appl. 2020;106:110167.
19. Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med. Phys. 1996;23:815–850.
20. Starcuková J, Starcuk Z Jr, Hubálková H, Linetskiy I. Magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity of metallic dental materials and their impact on MR imaging artifacts. Dent. Mater. 2008;24(6):715-723.
21. Taniyama T, Sohmura T, Etoh T, Aoki M, Sugiyama E, Takahashi J. Metal artifacts in MRI from non-magnetic dental alloy and its FEM analysis. Dent. Mater. J. 2010;29:297–302.
22. Tymofiyeva O, Vaegler S, Rottner K, Boldt J, Hopfgartner AJ, Proff PC, et al. Influence of dental materials on dental MRI. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2013;42(6):20120271.
23. Wehrli FW. Magnetic resonance of calcified tissues. J. Magn. Reson. 2013;229:35–48.