Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Oral and Dental Disease Research Center, Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
2 Student Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
3 Postgraduate Student Dept. of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
4 Orthodontic Research Center, Dept. of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Abstract
Background: Fixed orthodontic appliances, such as stainless steel and titanium brackets, might become exposed to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during treatment. However, the effects of MRI on microleakage and thermal changes in these brackets have not been thoroughly investigated. This study addresses these gaps to ensure safety and efficacy in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment while exposed to MRI.
Purpose: This study investigates and compares the effects of 1.5 tesla (T) MRI exposure on microleakage and temperature changes in stainless steel and titanium orthodontic brackets, evaluating their safety and bond integrity during orthodontic treatment.
Materials and Method: In this in vitro study, forty non-carious, freshly extracted human maxillary premolars were randomly divided into stainless steel and titanium bracket groups (n=20). Each group was further subdivided into MRI-exposed (case) and non-exposed (control) subgroups. The case subgroups were subjected to a 1.5 T MRI scan for 20 minutes. Microleakage was evaluated using dye penetration under a stereomicroscope, and temperature changes were measured before and after MRI exposure. Statistical analysis included Kruskal-Wallis tests and paired t-tests. Significance was set at p Value <0.05.
Results: Microleakage at the enamel-adhesive interface was slightly higher than at the bracket-adhesive interface in all groups, but the differences were not statistically significant (p> 0.05). No significant differences in microleakage or temperature changes were observed between stainless steel and titanium brackets following MRI exposure (p> 0.05).
Conclusion: Exposure to a 1.5 T MRI magnetic field does not significantly affect microleakage or temperature changes in stainless steel or titanium brackets. These findings suggest that fixed orthodontic appliances do not need to be removed prior to MRI examinations, provided artifacts or image interference are not a concern.
Highlights
Maryam Paknahad (Google Scholar)
Shabnam Ajami (Google Scholar)
Keywords
- Hubálková H, La*Serna P, Linetskiy I, Dostálová TJ. Dental alloys and magnetic resonance imaging. Int Dent J. 2006; 56: 135-141.
- Matthews PM, Jezzard P. Functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004; 75: 6-12.
- Shahidi S, Bronoosh P, Alavi A, Zamiri B, Sadeghi A, Bagheri M, et al. Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on microleakage of amalgam restorations: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radio. 2009; 38: 470-474.
- Di*Nardo D, Gambarini G, Capuani S, Testarelli L. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging in endodontics: a review. J Endo. 2018; 44: 536-542.
- Mendes S, Rinne CA, Schmidt JC, Dagassan-Berndt D, Walter C. Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnostic purposes in operative dentistry- a systematic review. Clin Oral Invest. 2020; 24: 547-557.
- Assaf AT, Zrnc TA, Remus CC, Schönfeld M, Habermann CR, Riecke B, et al. Evaluation of four different optimized magnetic-resonance-imaging sequences for visualization of dental and maxillo-mandibular structures at 3 T. J Craniomaxillofa Surg. 2014; 42: 1356-1363.
- Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Ortho Dentofac Orthop. 1999; 115: 607-618.
- Sabbagh H, Nikolova T, Kakoschke SC, Wichelhaus A, Kakoschke TK. Functional Orthodontic Treatment of Mandibular Condyle Fractures in Children and Adolescent Patients: An MRI Follow-Up. Life (Basel). 2022; 12: 1596.
- Sedlacik J, Kutzner D, Khokale A, Schulze D, Fiehler J, Celik T, et al. Optimized 14+1 receive coil array and position system for 3D high-resolution MRI of dental and maxillomandibular structures. Dentomaxillofac Radio. 2016; 45: 20150177.
- Juerchott A, Freudlsperger C, Zingler S, Saleem MA, Jende JM, Lux CJ, et al. In vivo reliability of 3D cephalometric landmark determination on magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study. Clin Oral Invest. 2020; 24: 1339-1349.
- Maspero C, Abate A, Bellincioni F, Cavagnetto D, Lanteri V, Costa A, Farronato M. Comparison of a tridimensional cephalometric analysis performed on 3T-MRI compared with CBCT: a pilot study in adults. Prog Orthod. 2019; 20: 40.
- Kemper J, Priest AN, Schulze D, Kahl-Nieke B, Adam G, Klocke A. Orthodontic springs and auxiliary appliances: assessment of magnetic field interactions associated with 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance systems. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 533-540.
- Kajan ZD, Khademi J, Alizadeh A, Hemmaty YB, Roushan ZA. A comparative study of metal artifacts from common metal orthodontic brackets in magnetic resonance imaging. Imag Sci Dent. 2015; 45: 159.
- Okano Y, Yamashiro M, Kaneda T, Kasai K. Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint in patients with orthodontic appliances. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Patho Oral Radio Endo. 2003; 95: 255-263.
- Görgülü S, Ayyıldız S, Kamburoğlu K, Gökçe S, Ozen T. Effect of orthodontic brackets and different wires on radiofrequency heating and magnetic field interactions during 3-T MRI. Dentomaxillofac Radio. 2014; 43: 20130356.
- Shellock FG, Spinazzi A. MRI safety update 2008: part 2, screening patients for MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191: 1140-1149.
- Starčuková J, Starčuk Jr Z, Hubálková H, Linetskiy I. Magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity of metallic dental materials and their impact on MR imaging artifacts. Dent Mate. 2008; 24: 715-723.
- Chockattu SJ, Suryakant DB, Thakur S. Unwanted effects due to interactions between dental materials and magnetic resonance imaging: a review of the literature. Restor Dent Endod. 2018; 43: e39.
- Shalish M, Dykstein N, Friedlander-Barenboim S, Ben-David E, Gomori JM, Chaushu S. Influence of common fixed retainers on the diagnostic quality of cranial magnetic resonance images. Am J Ortho Dentofac Orthop. 2015; 147: 604-609.
- Shellock FG. Magnetic resonance safety update 2002: implants and devices. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 16: 485-496.
- Gunzinger JM, Delso G, Boss A, Porto M, Davison H, von*Schulthess GK, et al. Metal artifact reduction in patients with dental implants using multispectral three-dimensional data acquisition for hybrid PET/MRI. EJNMMI Physics. 2014; 1: 1-14.
- Mundhada VV, Jadhav VV, Reche A. A Review on Orthodontic Brackets and Their Application in Clinical Orthodontics. Cureus. 2023; 15: e46615.
- Beau A, Bossard D, Gebeile-Chauty S. Magnetic resonance imaging artefacts and fixed orthodontic attachments. L'Orthodontie Francaise. 2017; 88: 131-138.
- Elison JM, Leggitt VL, Thomson M, Oyoyo U, Wycliffe ND. Influence of common orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic quality of cranial magnetic resonance images. Am J Ortho Dentofac Orthop. 2008; 134: 563-572.
- Linetskiy I, Starčuková J, Hubálková H, Starčuk*Jr Z, Özcan M. Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging issues of titanium and stainless steel brackets. Science Asia. 2019; 45: 145.
- Zachriat C, Asbach P, Blankenstein K, Peroz I, Blankenstein F. MRI with intraoral orthodontic appliance-a comparative in vitro and in vivo study of image artefacts at 1.5 T. Dentomaxillofac Radio. 2015; 44: 20140416.
- Yassi K, Ziane F, Bardinet E, Moinard M, Veyret B, Chateil JF. Evaluation des risques d'échauffement et de déplacement des appareils orthodontiques en imagerie par résonance magnétique (Evaluation of the risk of overheating and displacement of orthodontic devices in magnetic resonance imaging). J Radiol. 2007; 88: 263-268.
- Alkis H, Turkkahraman H, Adanir N. Microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive systems. Eur J Dent. 2015; 9: 117-121.
- Hasanin M, Kaplan SE, Hohlen B, Lai C, Nagshabandi R, Zhu X, et al. Effects of orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic capability of magnetic resonance imaging in the head and neck region: A systematic review. Int Ortho. 2019; 17: 403-414.
- Yassaei S, Aghili H, KhanPayeh E, Goldani*Moghadam M. Comparison of shear bond strength of rebonded brackets with four methods of adhesive removal. Lasers Med Sci. 2014; 29: 1563-1568.
- Degrazia FW, Genari B, Ferrazzo VA, Santos-Pinto AD, Grehs RA. Enamel roughness changes after removal of orthodontic adhesive. Dent J. 2018; 6: 39.
- Zhylich D, Krishnan P, Muthusami P, Rayner T, Shroff M, Doria A, et al. Effects of orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic quality of magnetic resonance images of the head. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151: 484-499.
- Kustarci A, Sokucu O. Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate, Clearfil Protect Bond, and KTP laser on microleakage under metal orthodontic brackets with thermocycling. Photomed Laser Surg. 2010; 28 Suppl 2: S57-S62.
- Sasaki M, Inoue T, Tohyama K, Oikawa H, Ehara S, Ogawa A. High-field MRI of the central nervous system: current approaches to clinical and microscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2003; 2: 133-139.
- DeLano MC, DeMarco JK. 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MR Angiography of the head and neck. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2006; 16: 321-341.
- Regier M, Kemper J, Kaul MG, Feddersen M, Adam G, Kahl-Nieke B, et al. Radiofrequency-induced heating near fixed orthodontic appliances in high field MRI systems at 3.0 Tesla. J Orofac Orthop. 2009; 70: 485-494.
- Arıkan S, Arhun N, Arman A, Cehreli SB. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets photopolymerized with LED or conventional light curing units. Angle Ortho. 2006; 76: 1035-1040.
- Sfondrini MF, Preda L, Calliada F, Carbone L, Lungarotti L, Bernardinelli L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and its effects on metallic brackets and wires: does it alter the temperature and bonding efficacy of orthodontic devices? Materials. 2019; 12: 3971.
- Pakshir H, Ajami S. Effect of enamel preparation and light curing methods on microleakage under orthodontic brackets. J Dent (Tehran, Iran). 2015; 12: 436.
- Bolat*Gümüş E, Şatir S, Kuştarci A. Microleakage beneath orthodontic brackets in high field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) AT 1.5 & 3 Tesla. Dentomaxillofac Radio. 2022; 51: 20210512.
- Arhun N, Arman A, Cehreli SB, Arıkan S, Karabulut E, Gülşahı K. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial adhesive system. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76: 1028-1034.
- Nilgun Ozturk A, Usumez A, Ozturk B, Usumez S. Influence of different light sources on microleakage of class V composite resin restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31: 500-504.
- Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Parsell RR, Strawn SE, Fat JC. Permeability of biological and synthetic molecules through dentine. J Oral Rehabil. 1994; 21: 475-487.
- Yap A, Stokes AN, Pearson GJ. An in vitro microleakage study of a new multi-purpose dental adhesive system. J Oral Rehabil. 1996; 23: 302-308.
- Wezel J, Kooij BJ, Webb AG. Assessing the MR compatibility of dental retainer wires at 7 Tesla. Magn Reson Med. 2014; 72: 1191-1198.
- Dobai A, Dembrovszky F, Vízkelety T, Barsi P, Juhász F, Dobó-Nagy C. MRI compatibility of orthodontic brackets and wires: systematic review article. BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22: 298.
- Hasegawa M, Miyata K, Abe Y, Ishigami T. Radiofrequency heating of metallic dental devices during 3.0 T MRI. Dentomaxillofac Radio. 2013; 42: 20120234.
- Zhylich D, Krishnan P, Muthusami P, Rayner T, Shroff M, Doria A, et al. Effects of orthodontic appliances on the diagnostic quality of magnetic resonance images of the head. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017; 151: 484-499.
- Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir A, Rahmati-Kamel M. Should the orthodontic brackets always be removed prior to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)? J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2016; 6: 142-152.
)