ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Orthodontic appliances and their diagnostic impact to brain MRI.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to display and quantify signal loss artifacts in 1.5T and 3T brain MRI on a volunteer with different orthodontic appliances. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this experimental study, three different orthodontic appliances were examined on a 1.5T and a 3T MRI scanner in a healthy adult with normal dental occlusion: stainless-steel brackets paired with a nickel-titanium archwire; brackets, archwire, and stainless-steel molar bands; brackets, archwire, molar bands, and a stainless-steel trans-palatal archwire. Assessment of diverse anatomical structures, including different cerebral structures and blood vessels, was conducted using a six-point Likert scale.
resultsUtilizing conventional stainless-steel brackets and a nickel-titanium archwire, with or without the inclusion of stainless-steel molar bands, all cerebral structures demonstrated satisfactory assessability with high diagnostic quality under both 1.5T and 3T MRI. For example, with an average rating of 85/85 for T2 and 77/85 for susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI). Upon introduction of the stainless-steel trans-palatal archwire, additional artifacts were observed, predominantly manifesting in SWI (20/85), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences (31/85), and phase contrast angiography (PCA) (17/20). Differences in artifact severity were mainly observed in the SWI and DWI sequences.
conclusionBased on the findings of this study, it is not imperative to entirely remove orthodontic appliances to achieve sufficient diagnostic quality in brain MRI. In instances where SWI or DWI sequences are necessitated, the removal of solely the trans-palatal stainless-steel archwire should be contemplated, given its straightforward execution. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results highlight the potential to reduce injury risk during orthodontic appliance removal, expedite imaging procedures, and consequently accelerate diagnostic processes, particularly crucial in emergencies.
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.