ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Diagnostic compatibility of various fixed orthodontic retainers for head/neck MRI and dental MRI.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of CBCT and dental-MRI for detecting peri-implant bone defects at single titanium implants: an in-vitro pilot study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Beyond X-Rays: Unveiling the Future of Dental Diagnosis with Dental Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The evolving role of MRI in dentomaxillofacial diagnostics: a comprehensive review.European oral research · 2025Review
- Comparing the Impact of Titanium and Stainless Steel Retainers on Lower Incisor Stability, Periodontal Health, and Retainer Survival: A Preliminary Study.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- Multibraided Fixed Retainers with Different Diameters after Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): In Vitro Study Investigating Temperature Changes and Bonding Efficacy.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Albumin-based nanosystem for dual-modality imaging-guided chem-phototherapy against immune-cold triple-negative breast cancer.Regenerative biomaterials · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic MRI compatibility of different fixed orthodontic retainers using a high-resolution 3D-sequence optimized for artifact reduction. MATERIALS AND
methodsMaxillary 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 (AV
resultsRectangular-steel retainers caused the largest artifacts (AV
conclusionsIn 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.
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.