Influence on Flux Density of Intraoral Dental Magnets During 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla MRI

被引:2
作者
Blankenstein, F. H. [1 ]
Truong, B.
Thomas, A. [2 ]
Boeckler, A. [3 ]
Peroz, I. [1 ]
机构
[1] Charite, Charite Ctr Zahn Mund & Kieferheilkunde 3, D-14197 Berlin, Germany
[2] Charite, Charite Ctr Diagnost & Intervent Radiol & Nukl Me, D-14197 Berlin, Germany
[3] Univ Halle Wittenberg, Zentrum Zahn Mund & Kieferheilkunde, D-4010 Halle, Germany
来源
ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN | 2011年 / 183卷 / 08期
关键词
dental magnetic attachments; coercive field strength; flux density; patient education; MRI; pole reversal; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; INTERNAL MAGNET; SAFETY;
D O I
10.1055/s-0031-1273424
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: When using dental duo-magnet systems, a mini-magnet remains in the jaw after removal of the prosthesis. In some cases, implant-borne magnets may be removed, whereas tooth-borne magnets are irreversibly fixed on a natural tooth root. The goal of this paper is to identify the impacts of the duration and orientation of exposure on these magnets in a 1.5 or 3 Tesla MRI. Materials and Methods: For this study, 30 SmCo and 60 NdFeB magnets were used. During the first experiment, they were exposed with free orientation for 64 minutes. During the second experiment, the magnets were fixed in position and exposed at 1.5 and 3 Tesla while aligned in a parallel or antiparallel direction. Results: While the duration of exposure in MRI is irrelevant, the orientation is not. The coercive field strength of these NdFeB and SmCo alloys is not sufficient to reliably withstand demagnetization in a 1.5 or 3 T MRI when aligned in an antiparallel direction. At 1.5 T neodymium magnets were reduced to approx. 34% and samarium magnets to approx. 92% of their initial values. At 3 T all magnets were reversed. Conclusion: As a precaution, the worst-case scenario, i.e. an antiparallel orientation, should be assumed when using a duo-magnet system. If an MRI can be postponed, the general dentist should remove implant-borne magnets. If there is a vital indication, irreversible damage to the magnets is acceptable in consultation with the patient since the replacement costs are irrelevant given the underlying disease.
引用
收藏
页码:727 / 734
页数:8
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]   Adjustable Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunt Valves in 3.0-Tesla MRI: a Phantom Study using Explanted Devices [J].
Akbar, M. ;
Aschoff, A. ;
Georgi, J. C. ;
Nennig, E. ;
Heiland, S. ;
Abel, R. ;
Stippich, C. .
ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2010, 182 (07) :594-602
[2]  
Baumgartner WD, 2000, WIEN KLIN WOCHENSCHR, V112, P512
[3]  
BLANKENSTEIN F, 2001, MAGNETE ZAHNMEDIZIN
[4]   Signal loss in magnetic resonance imaging caused by intraoral anchored dental magnetic materials [J].
Blankenstein, F. H. ;
Truong, B. ;
Thomas, A. ;
Schroeder, R. J. ;
Naumann, M. .
ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2006, 178 (08) :787-793
[5]  
Boeckler A, 2008, ZAHNARZTL IMPL, V24, P276
[6]  
Boeckler Arne F, 2008, J Prosthodont, V17, P608, DOI 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00356.x
[7]  
Chopra V, 2007, EUR J PROSTHODONT RE, V15, P7
[8]   Safety study of the Cochlear Nucleus® 24 Device with internal magnet in the 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner [J].
Gubbels, SP ;
McMenomey, SO .
LARYNGOSCOPE, 2006, 116 (06) :865-871
[9]   Demagnetization of cochlear implants and temperature changes in 3.0T MRI environment [J].
Majdani, Omid ;
Leinung, Martin ;
Rau, Thomas ;
Akbarian, Arash ;
Zimmerling, Martin ;
Lenarz, Minoo ;
Lenarz, Thomas ;
Labadie, Robert .
OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2008, 139 (06) :833-839
[10]  
Shellock FG, 2006, AM J NEURORADIOL, V27, P661