ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2024
In vivo assessment of artefacts in MRI images caused by conventional twistflex and various fixed orthodontic CAD/CAM retainers.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Success Rates of a CAD/CAM Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Fixed Retainer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Multibraided Fixed Retainers with Different Diameters after Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): In Vitro Study Investigating Temperature Changes and Bonding Efficacy.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo 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
methodsMRI 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).
resultsTwistflex 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).
conclusionThe 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.
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.