ArticleJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
Magnetic resonance imaging investigations in patients with metallic dental prosthesis: "The associated dilemma for medical fraternity and the dentist's role".
Article in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interdisciplinary referrals for dental examination in hospital setups are common before radiotherapy, kidney transplants, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The patients who walk in could be random patients with metallic or porcelain-fused-to-metal prostheses done elsewhere but might require an opinion before the MRI. This leaves quite a responsibility on the consulting dentist to green signal the procedure. There is a lack of evidence in the literature, to confirm the absence of any untoward consequence during such MRI, which might leave the dentist in dilemma. Dental materials' magnetic behavior raises concern regarding whether they are 100% nonferromagnetic; furthermore, the examining dentist might be unaware of the metal used (Co-Cr, Ni-Cr, or trace elements). Clinicians may also come across full-mouth rehabilitated patients with multiple crown-bridge prostheses or metallic superstructure for implant prostheses. Research in the area leaves many unanswered questions because most studies have evaluated artifacts during MRI and are in vitro. Titanium is considered to be safe due to its paramagnetic behavior, whereas the literature does not rule out the probability of dislodgment of other porcelain fused to metal (PFM) prostheses. Due to less reported literature there exists dilemma to ascertain MRI in these patients. An online Google Search, PubMed, and gray literature portray the ambiguity associated with metal and PFM crowns and their magnetic behavior during MRI. Most studies were associated with the artifacts caused during MRI and methods of reducing them under in vitro situations. The concern for dislodgment has also been expressed in a few reports. Technique: Certain steps of a pre-MRI checkup and an innovative technique have been discussed to assure patient safety during the MRI. Conclusion: The technique explained is inexpensive and a quick aid that can be executed before the investigation. Clinical and Research Implications: There is a need to study and understand the magnetic behavior of Co-Cr and Ni-Cr crowns in the presence of various MRI strengths.
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.