ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2018
MSVAT-SPACE-STIR and SEMAC-STIR for Reduction of Metallic Artifacts in 3T Head and Neck MRI.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Magnetic resonance imaging artefacts caused by orthodontic appliances and/or implant-supported prosthesis: a systematic review.Oral radiology · 2023Pooled it
- Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging caused by dental materials: a systematic review.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Intraoperative C-arm CBCT versus early postoperative MRI for the assessment of fracture reduction and osteosynthesis material positioning in cranio-maxillofacial trauma surgery.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Observational
- Evaluation of deep learning MRI reconstruction for dental implant crowns in a phantom study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- SEMAC + VAT for Suppression of Artifacts Induced by Dental-Implant-Supported Restorations in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Performance of PROPELLER FSE TScientific reports · 2022Article
- Geometric Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Oral Implant Planning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Radiomic biomarkers for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020Review
- Recent advances in MRI of the head and neck, skull base and cranial nerves: new and evolving sequences, analyses and clinical applications.The British journal of radiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe incidence of metallic dental restorations and implants is increasing, and head and neck MR imaging is becoming challenging regarding artifacts. Our aim was to evaluate whether multiple-slab acquisition with view angle tilting gradient based on a sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts by using different flip angle evolution (MSVAT-SPACE)-STIR and slice-encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC)-STIR are beneficial regarding artifact suppression compared with the SPACE-STIR and TSE-STIR in vitro and in vivo. MATERIALS AND
methodsAt 3T, 3D artifacts of 2 dental implants, supporting different single crowns, were evaluated. Image quality was evaluated quantitatively (normalized signal-to-noise ratio) and qualitatively (2 reads by 2 blinded radiologists). Feasibility was tested in vivo in 5 volunteers and 5 patients, respectively.
resultsMaximum achievable resolution and the normalized signal-to-noise ratio of MSVAT-SPACE-STIR were higher compared with SEMAC-STIR. Performance in terms of artifact correction was dependent on the material composition. For highly paramagnetic materials, SEMAC-STIR was superior to MSVAT-SPACE-STIR (27.8% smaller artifact volume) and TSE-STIR (93.2% less slice distortion). However, MSVAT-SPACE-STIR reduced the artifact size compared with SPACE-STIR by 71.5%. For low-paramagnetic materials, MSVAT-SPACE-STIR performed as well as SEMAC-STIR. Furthermore, MSVAT-SPACE-STIR decreased artifact volume by 69.5% compared with SPACE-STIR. The image quality of all sequences did not differ systematically. In vivo results were comparable with in vitro results.
conclusionsRegarding susceptibility artifacts and acquisition time, MSVAT-SPACE-STIR might be advantageous over SPACE-STIR for high-resolution and isotropic head and neck imaging. Only for materials with high-susceptibility differences to soft tissue, the use of SEMAC-STIR might be beneficial. Within limited acquisition times, SEMAC-STIR cannot exploit its full advantage over TSE-STIR regarding artifact suppression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.