ArticleImaging science in dentistry2021
Orthodontic appliances and MR image artefacts: An exploratory in vitro and in vivo study using 1.5-T and 3-T scanners.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging caused by dental materials: a systematic review.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Pooled it
- MRI compatibility of orthodontic brackets and wires: systematic review article.BMC oral health · 2022Pooled it
- Academic-Year Differences in Dental Students' Knowledge of Non-Ionising Imaging: MRI-Related Dental Material Safety and Ultrasonography.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- The influence of preformed metal crowns versus zirconia crowns on the diagnostic quality of magnetic resonance images.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Detection of Perineural Spread in Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2024Article
- Multibraided Fixed Retainers with Different Diameters after Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): In Vitro Study Investigating Temperature Changes and Bonding Efficacy.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- In vivo assessment of artefacts in MRI images caused by conventional twistflex and various fixed orthodontic CAD/CAM retainers.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2024Article
- Diagnostic compatibility of various fixed orthodontic retainers for head/neck MRI and dental MRI.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to assess the artefacts of 12 fixed orthodontic appliances in magnetic resonance images obtained using 1.5-T and 3-T scanners, and to evaluate different imaging sequences designed to suppress metal artefacts. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn vitro, study casts of 1 adult with normal occlusion were used. Twelve orthodontic appliances were attached to the study casts and scanned. Turbo spin echo (TSE), TSE with high readout bandwidth, and TSE with view angle tilting and slice encoding for metal artefact correction were used to suppress metal artefacts. Artefacts were measured. In vivo, 6 appliances were scanned: 1) conventional stainless-steel brackets; 2) nickel-free brackets; 3) titanium brackets; 4) a Herbst appliance; 5) a fixed retainer; and 6) a rapid maxillary expander. The maxilla, mandible, nasopharynx, tongue, temporomandibular joints, and cranial base/eye globes were assessed. Scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 indicated no artefacts and minor, moderate, and major artefacts, respectively.
resultsIn vitro, titanium brackets and the fixed retainer created minor artefacts. In vivo, titanium brackets caused minor artefacts. Conventional stainless-steel and nickel free brackets, the fixed retainer, and the rapid maxillary expander caused major artefacts in the maxilla and mandible. Conventional stainless-steel and nickel-free brackets caused major artefacts in the eye globe (3-T). TSE with high readout bandwidth reduced image artefacts in both scanners.
conclusionTitanium brackets, the Herbst appliance, and the fixed retainer caused minor artefacts in images of neurocranial structures (1.5-T and 3-T) when using TSE with high readout bandwidth.
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.