Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: Metallic compounds present in the oral and maxillofacial regions (OMRs) cause large artefacts during MR scanning. We quantitatively assessed these artefacts embedded within a phantom according to standards set by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). METHODS: cube embedded within a phantom) were scanned [i.e. aluminium (Al), silver alloy (Ag), type IV gold alloy (Au), gold-palladium-silver alloy (Au-Pd-Ag), titanium (Ti), nickel-chromium alloy (NC) and cobalt-chromium alloy (CC)] and compared with a reference image. Sequences included gradient echo (GRE), fast spin echo (FSE), gradient recalled acquisition in steady state (GRASS), a spoiled GRASS (SPGR), a fast SPGR (FSPGR), fast imaging employing steady state (FIESTA) and echo planar imaging (EPI; axial/sagittal planes). Artefact areas were determined according to the ASTM-F2119 standard, and artefact volumes were assessed using OsiriX MD software (Pixmeo, Geneva, Switzerland). RESULTS: < FSPGR/SPGR < GRASS/GRE < FIESTA < EPI. For all scanning sequences, artefact volumes containing Au, Al, Ag and Au-Pd-Ag were significantly smaller than other materials (in which artefact volume size increased, respectively, from Ti < NC < CC). The artefact-specific shape (elicited by the cubic sample) depended on the scanning plane (i.e. a circular pattern for the axial plane and a "clover-like" pattern for the sagittal plane). CONCLUSIONS: The availability of standardized information on artefact size and configuration during MRI will enhance diagnosis when faced with metallic compounds in the OMR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murakami et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: